• Collapse

  • Annotate using Feed The Pundit
  • Ts-226
  • Facsimile
  • Ts-226,32[2] Diplomatic transcription
  • prev
  • next
  • Drag

   
     
54
But what are the simple components || elements of which reality is made up || composed? – What are the simple components || elements of a chair? – The pieces of wood out of which it is put together? Or the molecules? Or the electrons? “Simple” means: not composite || complex. And then || thus it all depends on: in what sense “composite || complex”? It is senseless || makes no sense to talk about the “simple components of a chair” without qualification. Or: Does my visual image || sense datum || the visual appearance I get of this tree, or of this chair, consist of parts? and || And what are its simple components? Being of different colours is one || a kind of complexity; another is, for instance || e.g., the composition of this broken contour || line graphics_Kurven;    Kurve out of straight bits. And you might || may call this graphics_Kurven;    Kurve curve a complex || a curve compound of || say that this curve graphics_Kurven;    Kurve was made up of an ascending and a descending part || branch.
     If I say to someone without further explanation, || : “What I now see before me is complex”, then he will ¤ quite correct || right in asking, || rightly ask you: “What do you mean by ‘complex’? That || This can || may mean all sorts of things.” – The question, “Is what you see complex?”, does have meaning if it is already clear what sort of complexity – i.e., what particular kind of use of this word – is supposed to be in question || we are referring to || is in question. If it had been settled || laid down, for instance || e.g., that the visual image || appearance of a tree shall || is to be called complex if you see not only a trunk but also branches, then the question, “Is the visual appearance of this tree simple or complex?”, and the question, “What are its simple components?”, would have a clear use || sense, a clear use. And the answer to the second question, of course, || is, of course, not, “The || : “the branches” (this would be an answer to the grammatical question “What does one call ‘simple components’ here || do you call here ‘simple components’?”) but rather a description of the individual branches.

(2015–) Wittgenstein Source Bergen Nachlass Edition (WS-BNE). Edited by the Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen under the direction of Alois Pichler. In: Wittgenstein Source, curated by Alois Pichler (2009–) and Joseph Wang-Kathrein (2020–). (N) Bergen: WAB.




To cite this element you can use the following URL:


BOXVIEW: http://www.wittgensteinsource.com/BTE/Ts-226,32[2]_n

RDF: http://www.wittgensteinsource.com/BTE/Ts-226,32[2]_n/rdf

JSON: http://www.wittgensteinsource.com/BTE/Ts-226,32[2]_n/json