112
ˇThere can't be [A|a]
vagueness in logic – we
want wish to
say
. – is something that can't
be.
We
live now in the idea: the ideal
“
must” be
there found
lie in reality in
reality the real
world. –
While we don't yet see
how it
// how it has
a place there // , and don't understand
the
nature of this “must”.
We believe
it
must
in the real world, for
we
believe
to we see it there already think we already see it there |
.
In our thoughts [t|T]he
ideal, , sits
firm
and immovable.
You can't step
it.
You
always have 've
got to go back
again.
There
is no outside; outside
you can't
breathe there's no air |
. –
Whence
ˇall this?
ˇHow does this
queer situation arrise?
The idea,
, rests sits as
71
as it were
, on our nose
ˇsits as ˇlike a pair of
spectacles,
and whatever we look at we see through
.
It never enters our head to take them off.
How can I understand the
now,
the
analysis is
supposed to be able to show
whatch
ˇit is I really understand? –
Here the idea of understanding as a
mental process
enters in.
The strict
, andch clear rules of the logical
construction of
proposition appear to us as something in the back
ground, –
hidden
in the medium of understanding.
I seem them now already (even
thou[h|g]h through a medium) I see them even now
(although through a medium)
, since I understand
the sign, mean something
it.
The ideally
construction appears to me as something concrete: – I had
used a simile;
becaus but because of the
grammatical illusion, that to the
there
corresponds
one thing,
is
in common to all
objects
falling under
it, it did not seem to be a simile.