59
What is meant by saying
of the elements that we can
ascribe neither being nor not-being to
them? –
might say
something like this: If everything that we call being or
not-being consists in
the fact that connections
hold
ing or
do or not
hold
ing between the
elements, then there is no sense in speaking of the being
(not-being) o
[r|f] an element; just as, if
everything that we call “destroying” consists in
the separating
tearing apart
of elemtns elements
ap, it has no sense to speak of destroying an
element.
But
we our we
should should like
wish to say:
can't
ascribe
atribute predicate being
to
of an element, because if it
,
then you it couldn't even
name it be named, and
so you could say therefore [t|n]othing
ˇcould be said of about it. –
dLet
' us consider an analogous
case
, though, which will make
th
[e|is]
clearer
[:| .] There is one thing of
which you can't say either that it
is 1 m long
or that it
isch not 1 m long, and that is the
standard meter in Paris.
–
But
ˇ, of course, we have
n[o|']t thereby ascribed by
saying this we haven't attributed any peculiar
ˇany curious property to the standard meter,
of
course, but have only indicated its peculiar role in the
game process // procedures //
of measuring with the meter
-rule.
–
dLet
' us
samples of
colours pre
[v|s]er
[s|v]ed in
Paris in
a similar the way
to the standard meter
ˇ is[.|:] Then
And ˇand we explain
ˇe.g. that “sepia” means
the colour of the standard s
ˇep
eia
that
is preserved there
a
vacuum.
Then it will have no
se sense to say of this
sample
either that it has this colour or that it
hasn't
it.
37
it.
This
may be expressed thus
We may express this in this way |
:
sample is
of the language
with ˇby means of which we make
statements about colours.
ˇIn this game [I|i]t
is
, in this game, not something
ˇwhich is described
in this
game,, but a means of
descri
[bing|ption].
–
And the same
thing holds of an element in
ˇthe
language game
ˇin
№
(
[4|5]7) when
, in
naming
it ˇassigning a name to it, we
the word
“R”:
[W|w]e
have thereby given
to this
a role in our
language game, it is now a
means of
descri
[t|p]tion.
And the statement
, :
“If it
,
then it
could have no
name”,
ˇnow says as
much and as little as
, :
“If this thing didn't exist,
then we
couldn't use it in our game.” –
What
,
must exist,
belongs to
the ˇis an instrument of language.
It
palyas plays
in our game the
role of a paradigm
ˇ in our game: ;
the role of a standard with which
something's compared.
of that with which a comparison is
made. |
And to state this may be
toch
make
ing an
importantch
statement.
But it is nevertheless a statement concerning our language
– , our
of
describing.