In the posting (01)
I make referent to Stanford's Plato library entry for logical atomism (02)
"Although it has few adherents today, logical atomism was once a leading
movement within early twentieth-century analytic philosophy. Different,
though related, versions of the view were developed by Bertrand Russell and
Ludwig Wittgenstein. Russell's logical atomism is set forth in his 1918 work
“The Philosophy of Logical Atomism” (Russell 1956), Wittgenstein's in his
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus of 1921 (Wittgenstein 1981). The core tenets
of Wittgenstein's logical atomism may be stated as follows: (i) Every
proposition has a unique final analysis which reveals it to be a
truth-function of elementary propositions asserting the existence of atomic
states of affairs (Tractatus 3.25, 4.21, 4.221, 5); (ii) Elementary
propositions are mutually independent — each one can be true or false
independently of the truth or falsity of the others (4.211, 5.134); (iii)
Elementary propositions are immediate combinations of semantically simple
symbols or “names” (4.221); (iv) Names refer to items wholly devoid of
complexity, so-called “objects” (2.02 & 3.22); (v) Atomic states of affairs
are combinations of these simple objects (2.01). (03)
Although these doctrines are recognizably atomist in spirit, the term
‘logical atomism’ is not used by Wittgenstein. It was introduced by Russell
in his 1911 lecture to the French Philosophical Society, La Réalism
Analytique (Russell 1911).[1] Russell had advertised “The Philosophy of
Logical Atomism” as being “very largely concerned with explaining certain
ideas which [he had] learnt from [his] friend and former pupil Ludwig
Wittgenstein” (Marsh, 177). No doubt partly as a result of this description,
the term ‘logical atomism’ susequently became associated with Wittgenstein's
early philosophy. The term is now standardly used to apply to a vaguely
defined set of doctrines centered on theses (i)–(v). In Russell's opinion,
what makes it appropriate to speak of logical atomism is that the atoms in
question are to be arrived at by logical rather than physical analysis
(Russell 1956, 179). For Wittgenstein too, the ultimate constituents of
reality are to be revealed by a process of logical analysis; so, to that
extent, the label seems apt. It is not, however, uncontroversial (see Floyd,
1998).[2]" (04)
This URLis at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein-atomism/ (05)
John, (06)
Given this historical background; and your own work on a (substructural)
framework that has 12 primitives, is it possible to make a formal linkage
between your deeper notions on lattice of formal constructions (ie models or
theories) and some type of aggregation process that helps identify the
proper formal construction for a specific situation (or web service)? (07)
I know the answer is yes... but that there are resources and dedication
involved in taking this step. (08)
Your note on mapping language games to formal complexes (my words) seems to
begin to lay this out? (09)
Is is possible to call this "conceptual atomism"? (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (011)
|