NOTEBOOKS 1914-1916 By LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN Eded by G. H. von WRIGHT ond G. E. M. ANSCOMBE ith Els toltion by G. EM. ANSCOMBE ‘ HARPER TORCHBOOKS ‘Harper & Row, Publishers New York and Evanstonoren008s, 19141916 Copiehe© Basi Blakwal, 1961 ined inthe United Sees of Ameren “stock wu et pbs Io 1961 by Bast Blakely Oo, Eider tows Push, Now Yok. i uanpnn ToRCHBOOK eon pblibed 1969 by Harper & Row. Pits Inco 49 Hat 33rd See, New York, NY. 10076. EDITORS’ PREFACE Tr was Wittgenstia’s bait to work by wsting down separate pars ‘graphs, or ‘emake’ at he sometimes called them —for they might Comprise more than oe paragaph—on the quesont that were ucrisng him. Later he would seek for an arangemeat of his eeu ‘which would make a satisfactory book. ‘This wat at mach hard work tthe thinking that had gone into the ‘retmaks’ and he didnot sim to incorporate all che remarks that he wat satisfied with inthe book that finally emerged. “There is a great diference between a mere ‘compilation from his notebooks, lke the Remark ot te Pomdations of Malenati! ov pron ohne, a0 Phd Inept or the Tratatn. ‘Mot ofthe notebooks containing his preliminary work, belonging to all his pesiods of wating, were destoped by hie order in 1550. ‘These included large number of notebooks From the time of germina: tion of the Trstas. "Three of these last survived, howeves, by the sccdent of having been left inthe hoase of his youngest sister, Mrs Stoaborough,2t Gmunden, iastead of in Vienna, ‘They were writen in the years 914-16 when Witgenstela was 24-7 yeas old. The frst two ate continuous. They form the mia body of the presat volume. ‘The Appendices comprise two sets of notes, one composed in 1913 and given to Russel, andthe other dicated to G. E. Moore Jn Norway in 1914; and, farther, such passages from Witgensteia’s Jeter to Russel st beat on the Tracts, ‘We publish chs mater as an aid torrents ofthe Tratats, Most of it is no easier than the Tracts isl i aturally shews develop- ‘ment; thus when it appears to pretent views diferent from those of the Tract, these is no need to reconcile the two. Ie should not be sed Without more ado as evidence for pariclar interpretations of the Tracttus It does shew clear, however, what problems formed the contest of Wittensteia's remarks in the Tratatr ia this way f will serve t9 cut short some argument where wholly ielevant con- texts ate suppored by an iterpetation. ‘We have marked the paragraphs that are more or less similar to ‘atresia the Tracttar. Where a whole "esas? here is practically ldeaical with a whole entry in the Tracts, we have simply given* PREFACE Be Tratws number; where itis practically idetial with par of a ‘Tratatar entry, we have put Set before the Travan number, and ‘where there i more or less similarity, but a leas sgniican diference in choice of words, or where something inthe Tratfa is the same part of a “remasi’ ia the sotcbooks, we have put Compare before the Trarttas suber ‘We have lef out very ltde that isin the gotebooks: the omissions sloost always were of sketches of symbolism, which could not be interpreted or were otherwise uninteresting. Witgenscia's use of symbols in lopieal formulae is often experimental, nor does be always Stick to one rule, eg, in the use of dots. We didnot want, however, to iterfere with it systematialy. Ta few places we have conected evident lip ofthe pen or elightiy ameaded a formula so a to make its intended metaing more obvious, "The Editors ate obliged to members of Witgenstei’sfanily, whose property the MS. notebooks ate, for putting them atthe disposal; to the late Professor G. E, Moore for lending the notebooks dictated ‘o him; to Loed Russell for access to and permission to copy Wittgen- stca's lerters to him, and to the Rockefeller Foundation for financial, fuppor. Thanks ate alto due to Me. M. Szabo for help in proof readiag. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ‘Tue Baitors of the Witgenstcin Notlwoke 199-1976 and Mess, ‘Basil Blackwell & Mott are indebred to Messrs, Routledge & Kegan. sl Ld. for permission to quote fom Witgenteia's rarer Lagi Philp.aaa, Die Logi mu fi sich selbersorgen. (8. 473] ‘Wenn sich syntaktische Regela fir Funktionen ariaypt austell lassen dann ist die ganze Theorie der Dinge, Eigenschaften ete. Aerts. Es it auch gar 2 aaflig,daB weder inden “Grune seoen?” noch in den "Principia Mathetacia™ von deser Theorie ede ise Noche: dena die Logik mu ics selbst sorgea, Ein inigfidesZelchen mma ach Beselchaen Kinaen. Alles, was Uberhau ‘oplich ist st auch legit (erlaubt). Eianeen wir uns an die Ex {lttung, warum “Soles et Plato” unsnnig ite Niolich dara, wel tir eine wilkdliche Bestimmung, sich getofen haben, aber NICHT ‘dram, wel das Zeichen an und fue sichetwaillegcim sell [Vg §.475 ape ‘Wir misten in cnem gewtsn Sane uns nicht in der Log fen omens Sn Sacer Sak ctdtae Die gk md Riu cli torgens Dest etme ungemcin tee and wichige Brhenninis. (V9 473) rege sag: jeder rchtmig gebildete Satz mud cinen Sinn haben, und ih age: eder mopliche Sa ist sechnaiggebidet, und wenn et inn Sinn hat, #0 hana dae dara legen dal wir ingen sence Bestandelen keine Bedeutong pede haben. Wenn wir auch gluben, ce get au haben. (Vel. 547331 seg te Wie tc mit des Afb dee Pilosophis vecabr, dat de Logik fie sich sebetsorgen sol? Wenn wir 2. B. fragen: ist die und ‘Tauache von der Subjeke-Peidikat Form, dana mussea wit doch “Wien, ous wir unter det “Sobjekt-Peailar Porm” versehen. Wir Tnses wise, ob es 40 eine Fosm tbechape gibt, Wie Konnen wie “des woven? “Aus den Zeichen|” Aber wie! Wit haben ja gat keine “Zrabenvon diese Porm. Wit kénnen was sagen: Wir haben Zzichen, die sich so benchmen, wie slche von der SubjektPridiat Form, aber ‘beweist day da es wihlich ‘Tteachen dieser Form. geben tmul? Namlich: wean diese volstodig analyser sind. Und hier tage es ich ‘wieder gibter so eine vollstindige Analyse? Und wm nr: Was ist ‘Sean dann die Aufgabe der Philosopher? ‘Also kianen wir wos fragen: Gibe es die Subjekt Pridikat Foo? Gibtes die Reasons? Cibe ex Uberhaupe ingnd cine der Formen, aan Logic must take cate of itself. [Ser 5.4734] * 1 sytctialeles for Function canbe stupa al thea the whole theory of thigs, proper ce, isupetonse. isl alto shige ‘has theory in ninqustn erin te Cpr on Pr Matte” Qos moe lope mast le eae cA peu sign. mast also be capable of sigan. reeying that's Done a alco lpia Lat ear ern Why “Soca is Pato” is nonsense ‘That fy becuse wave not Ile anatbitay specication, wor because 2 sgn shall we a, ‘egal (Gf. as] - tome 1 mut in cen seb impose ot wr go wrong i ‘his is akeady pay espreed by sping Logie ust te cae of ite This is an exenely profound and portant ing [C sar Frege says: Every welhformed sentence mast make ese; and yt “Ere pombe wl eds do ot mae te at can only come of out no having gw ay meang to cals of spars, Even when webleve we hve done oo [Cf asad sorbet wn aot eas take cate o elf? I for ample, we ask: Is sich and sacha fet ateewea tana emaas parame y mamrslosincees ikecc, Gens keen cede tiee amet Eheystenemmris tne Seine neies me mie Paste eg cremate een a Spaces Peon tin et ea on i oDRunS aman i vivanton dee el dh nme pre ae? Roel we mag erin ven ul spit erent rch de ie tlie cm erent i i Si oe eo a ener ee ee ee whe Uta ng oft Pg, wa seth oR es fir x Bowe ee Ste Se oe oan rt Faget Pile pee en dob "A iu” oe am en ER alee ae bc See ee ee a Ree a ae ee Bo ae at, ee ei a ae at ee es ew ee ot ee oa Oe re EIR Nea ps oer 2 Sati Ne Poi cy ain ci ci ee ae ce oe ee Go a Oey a ce Ca ot oe Sens Se bee Een ced Shri Be eee cole ae fe ah Se tae agli oo Stee sock ee eo So a a Sacco se am ‘Wena sich die Existens des Subjeke- Pediat Safer alles Notge sgt, dann koonte es doch nor die Fsistenzirgend einer besonderen Tatache jeer Form 2eigen. Und die Keantnis einer solchen kann ‘cht fir die Logik wesentich sin. ‘Gesett den Fall, wir itten cin Zeichen, das wirch von det Sbjekt- Pella oom wie ware dows fir den Autos von Sik Plidikat Sitea iegendwie gecigacter als unsere Subjekt Pri “hs scheint nein! Liege das an der bezichnenden Relation? ‘Wenn sich die Logik ohae die Beantwortng gewisser Fragen sbiclieben It, dann mai bm ie Sreeden. Die logis Idenitit von Zeichen und Bescichnetem beste dain, Rasell and T were always talking about? (Russell would say: “ Ghat seria” Wa 8? Gosek 7 Nest ‘Thea: if erything that needs to be shewn isshewn by the existence of subject predicate ancrencts etc, the ek of pilosophy is difereat fom wht gal supped. Bai at hwy hen what slacking would have to be hewn by means of some Lind of xp thd thf ards out of he gueaion Serres ‘The obscurity ovina resides in the question: what docs the logical deny of sign and thing sgnised relly consist in? And this question 4s (ne more) main aspect ofthe whole pilorophial problem, Let some phibsophiel question be given: ef. whether “A is good” i a sujeeeprediate propane or whetix "A i bighter, ‘han Bis relaonal proposition. How ca ab a gusto Be eed ot st" What som of evidence can sity me that fr esamplethe fet ‘quetdon must be arawered in the allemtie? This i a extemal Aporant question) Is the oly evidence hee once more tat ery int “dee? Lets ake goenion ste Le to, Wc twee snp and ore nena namely he wg olin our val Elda inl ait ig? Upto m0 have feasted such qurioas ath ral pwpial’ es and to for sae they tte ia some tente—but once move what erence could sete» quesion of tis sorta alll there no a misae in emaltion ef ks iit al ee kien ne this queso it oo an could ey Seite tions could never be settled at all. " ta ese ere te exitenc ofthe subject predate set does not show ety hinge en tl iy oi heen ye cen oe tome parila fom And wibawhe ‘cannot be essential for logic. “emeinance with wach a ee Suppve we had a sign hat tly was ofthe subj pete form, Wout somthow bse sede cpr nef proposions than out abjecreice seals te cee sl ow this ae fom the sing son? Iogic an be complaed witout neweing cela guess, 1k mil be completed wit sasetng them ons et The lope deity ween sign an thing signed consis iaad mani Zeichen nicht eb ond nicht weniger wiederehenoea ‘ieals im Beste. ‘Waren Zcichen und Benichates ni ihrem vollen logichen Ids nach idcnc, don mide & aoch etwas Fundamestaleres eben as de Logie 5900 a fh aRb = Det aR] Fiagre dich dad de Wore “Panlsion, “Argument”, “Sats” et in der Logic nchtrorkomsmen dite! ‘Von we Klaen sagen, sien ientisch, sag etwas. Von zwei ‘ingen det au sagen sof cts des soa mig de Unalisighet Bee Reselehen Demin, “ “s 6.9.14. er ks Sate int eigentlich ics Andee ls er wae wand _gope de deni in der Mathematik. Nich der, dal wean = 2 GHIA Ha wa, Gb der Su dn crm gen wre Kénnte man sagen: Die Logie kimmert dic Analsirbarelt der FPonktonen, mie denen se aceite, nc eden, da auch inser Sujet Si ces itd ge Tn ch ng eam ie a a it oR IS Ea i ben goer See ea i See intr Beng a oti de Logi ma Sobeke eat Cee en Sek cr en Er kon at Siaysieebs IS tenella und umes Haoprameand been ee oe ear ioe wer, abi Boe Se a ee Anes a keane, Sree ae to a een Sjle at Ses TESS 2 ce ei Wen te son Sete se om i Se sujet Fon oe hoe Das “Binleuchten”, von dem Rossell so viel sprch, Haan gor adc in er Logik cntbhich werden, dub die Spache tel jeden {opuchen Fehler veshindere. Und es ist Kar, da jenes “Ei ” inner plaslich wogeriach ist und wa. (Vf. 5-473 tnt bing pena to mcogine oreo sn the Sark em memories ne ign he 1 sgn td thing signed were mf Went in sexpct of che ton ep conte hee would ave tbe “i wen omg ol nore Ha). fb). aRb = Def gfaRb] a Renesas wosts anton’, “epuneat cought nat occuring To may of eo css that they ae Heneal meas someting. To say it of two things means noting. Ths of ia shews the inal ‘sibility of Russell's definition. ‘wef shows the - a “The last sentence i really nothing but the old old objection ageast idee in mata” Nanwly he son in hs > Sse ‘se rt i propane ody 90 ots Cou be it Logic i concrned with the fence vi tif werk Sh besa oe Remember that even an unanalysed subject-predicate propent ajo bon feast trim of comeing pus de ral depen, ot on on deg with uname sje pte tc tn Se a iat ur sojecrpreicte scotch: bve nh cay such seen in ney gece i acto oa bpd sneere gi ve hp sb singly wo compe legs or ao tiomin-chief agaist unanalyed subject predicate sence wa that soccer ng me dot La Br mt ot he ip of sa spare bereits {She he the sme athe peo Ral on TPs Seon fring propionate predate form posable stall 3 ‘The levie” of ich Rl edo macho somchan ibe peed wih ni ngage elf preven ay oi mae Wis Cea tint “abcde” and sees es Why deceptive. (Cf 5.4731]. in Sat wie “eve Seelist r” sceint crwas enon Rompe siess ty sagen, dean wolten we dasn Snr asec, dab as ‘Send. gop thn Einwendangen, die aus seiner Vildestighet Srp achen Kenn, 9 word e cao ang werden mbsen oo.tt as der Satz cn logisches Abbid since Bedeutung it fuser emunbcangeoea Auge cee CGibt es Furktonen von Taschen? ZB, “Bs ist besser, wenn des dee Fall als we nes der Falls” ‘Weria beset den de Verbindung ewschn dem Zaichen p und din beigen Zacaen des Sates “Est gt, a p de Pal se’? Worin tbe dee Verbindng?® ‘ez Untefangene wird sagen; Oseabar in de stumlichen Besihe ap des Dachutben p 2 dot roel Nachbuzeichen Wena aber dle ‘Tite "p” ene sok ware, in welcher keine Dine vorkommen?? st td” han wobl ait wenden in “es gt oom Wir sen srs psi sor Fal as eit dana 20 che ga iad pt Kone ganeofeabar sagen, der Suchet pot pce wien Ob "pr wa de fact. Det Avsdrck der Grammatils “Ein Wort bec sich auf cin andere” wld ier belewcect handel sich in den obigen Flea daram anzugeben, wie Size in sich Maenethangens "We der Sue: Vihou susan komm vga) ‘Wie kann sich cine Paktion ef cr Sty Dri? Umer die sakes Ege! Nat sich nicht von Fragen abedufen lesen; ures sich bequem maces! gigas Nehmen, wir a0, ont ene Fughton eins Sabet palit Sunes pegebon, und wit wolen die Ar der Besibung der Punkaon num $68 cadusch ctice, da wir gen: Die Funsion ‘let ich enmtelbar nor au das Subjele de Subjeke riba Seer Ghd ws bestine, dar logache Produkt abs dieser Be- Sei ond dem Subjeke rite Satzichen, Wena wir 620 “Tien Kone un ingen wen dv den Sate so erven Vans, A proposition like “this chic is brows” com own” seems to say some soriodsy completed, fori we wanted to expres ts proposition in such a way that nobody could mie objections to eon psu of stmbiguiy, # would have te innately long ‘That sentence isa logical portrayal of fs meaning is oben to the uncapive ee 4s obvious Ate thee functions of fics? eg, Its beter for this wo abt fonts off “Ts betes fo thi to ete ese What, then isthe consexion between the sgn om . 2 tad the rest of the to he ets arp te ego? Wat ‘The unapie judgement wil be: Obvouly inthe spa of the letter p to the two neighbouring ue spose the ft “ip were sub to connin op ings on™ DUE PPO the fact i ood tp” an * i tot a9” prom besa in ond eaves piso the ce: now what does it 4s good"? Quite obviously we can say that ch -comsion ? spl thot taowing wher Sis ose won P om «Tl ow ton wat we syn mma “One wont et ‘Thats why the point in he above cts st say how propo anges tly. How Seppe hl cone ae ence: [Gea] Gla * fina fr « pin? Atay he oot Deena one vt guns tee, Sappore we are prea fonction of sbjece pe ropeion a wet 0 cpa he wy the econ the oso by sing The fino ony els icy he {Rbjt ofthe set predate proposon snd wit spon the pil prodt of ts raon ane sbjecepodite propositional sign. Now if we say th, it an be asked I you eae cai the‘warum erhisst du dann aicht auch seine Bedeutung auf die analoge Kee und. Weis? Nimich “se sei keine Funktion ciner Subjkt, Deldliae Tassache, sondern dat logitche Produkt einer solchen und ‘het Fusion inves Sujektes"? MB nicht der Einwand, der gegen ‘lee Exelarang ie, auch gegen jene gelten? Es scheint mir etatplotalich in igend einem Sinne Kat, dA eine [Bigenscaft eines Sachverhals immer inte sein mu. a, yb, Rb, Man Kénnte sagen, der Sachverhalt aRb habe immer cide gevise Eigenschat, wenn dic beiden ersten Sitze wahe sind Wen ch ge: Ha it gut, ab pe al, nn me es een inh got sca, [Bs scheine mie jett Klas, da es keine Funktionen von Sachvedhalten geben kana. 25-9014. Man kone fags: wie ann det Schr p eine Eager ‘haben, wenn es sich am IEnde gar nicht so verhl 24.9.1 Die Frage, wie ist cine Zaoedaung von Relationen mbglich ist idenich mit dem Wahrheit Problem, 23.9214 Dean ies ist dennch mit der Prage, wie it ie Zuordnang Yon Sachvechatea moplich enembezeichnenden und inembezeichnetea). nur durch die Zuordaung dec Bestindteile méglichy ein ‘Beiopicl beter de Zoordaung von Namen und Benanatem, (Und es dab auch cine Zuordnng de Relaonen af irgead eine Weise [amb] os Jab) 5 paaRb Def Hier wied ein infaches Zeichen einem Sachvethalt zigeotdaet, 26.914. Womuf grindet sich unsere—sicher wohl beprindete—Zaver- sich, dab ‘ir Joden belicigen Sina in unserer zveidimensionalen Schult weaden ausducken konnea?l 27.9614 ‘Bin Satz kag seinen Sian jan daduech ausdicken, dae dessa lgisches ABDI ist proposition tke ta, ten why not give an analogous expantion EEG sands Namely “Te ots fen oF ace rn a Be pel ics ah ean a ec im sb"? Man ao he objection tte te Sip? ls obe iplanton bold [Now it suddenly sees tome in some sese clear that a property * situation must always be internal. i #4 #5 aR. Te could be si ha the situation aR always has @ cetain propery, the fst wo propositions sre tre, hen sa Iso for oe Be as hen mt ead Tenow ses ear wm that there anno be Function of ations, It could be asked: How can the situation have a propesty unt out ha the station docs oe old a al dep “he guetion how comltion of lbs is poe with the problem of truth, ose seve For the later i denial with the qestion how the conlton of siurdons spose (neta signer and one tat sige). Tes oaly posible by means ofthe conelation ofthe componets the correlation beeween names and things named gives an example. (Goditis clear thts concation of lations too takes place vomachow) [aR] 5 [ab]; pm aRb Det Here snpe sgn correlated with siuato, 6914 ‘What isthe ground of our—ceruily wal fonde—conee that TR aie xp ay sen ween ot eon ar9.t4 ag Btn an expres it sean by being ogi portaAufllend ist die Ahalichkit zwischen den Zeichen ye snd “toR . Reb" 9 Dee algemeine Begs des Sates fort auch einen Bega de Zaondnwag von Sats und Sachresal mit ek Die sung, AE meiner Fragen tb Babi cifach en Im Sat wid cine Welt probewsse suammengetelt. (Wie wena i Panter Geist ein Automobunglack mit Pappen ete darge- sellewinh (0p. aoe] ‘Damas maf sich (wenn ich sicht blind wire) sofre das Wesea der ‘Wahl exgees, enken wir an hierogipbisce Sehiten, bel denen jedes Wort see Belestng dened! Denke wir dh dad woh ii ‘idee von Saciverhalen simmer and mck rinmen Lonaen. (Vi fore) “RA Menschen A vorstelt, und bezeichet der linke den Menschen B, so ‘Kénateeewa dae ganze ausagen "A fiche mit B”. Der Sate i Bilder schrift kann waht und falsch ein, Le hat einen Sinn unabhingig vou ‘einer Wahroder Falschheit. An thm mal sich alles Weseaiche Semonstieren lassen. ‘Man Lana sagen, wir haben awa nicht die Gewitheit, da wir alle Sachvechalte in Bidem aufs Paper Bringen Kénnen, wohl aber die Gewithet, dab wi alle gies tea der Sachvedhalte in ‘ine rweidimensonalea Scitsbblden kane. Wir sind hiee noch immer sche an der Oberfiche, aber wohl auf seiner guten Adee, Wenn in dieser Bild der rechte Mann den 2-9. 14. Man kann sagen, in unserem Bide stele der Rechte ervas da tad such der Linke, av selbst wenn die nicht der Fall wate, 20 Kénate ihre gegenscitge Stcllang eowas darsellen. (Namlich eine Besich- ng) SRESS oe ees Sees in Te vk TS try be ae gin) Nach De atic See 299.14 “The geaerl concep ofthe proposition cats with ta que gene concep ofthe coorination of proposition ani suatn: The volun toall my questions must be xt) simple In the poposion a wold is ast were pot together experimentally. (As when inthe law-cou in Pais a motorcar scent represented| by meant of dlls ce!) (Cl 4051) “This mus yd tbe satureof truth tight away 1 wer not blind). “eta think of hiroglypieweng in which cach word ia repre sentation of what sta fo. Let think algo ofthe fc that aa Pictures of uations xa be riffand arene. [Cf 216] © FEA 1000 stead gue i is pa represents the man A, andthe left-hand one stands fr the maa B, then the whole might assea, e.g: “A is fencing with B”. The proposition in pieture-writing can be true and false. Teh a sense independent of its truth o falsehood. Tt must be possible to demonstate everything essential by considering this ese, ‘Ie can be said that, while we are ot certain of being able to tuen ll situations into pictues oa paper, sll we are certain thit we cat portray all gal properties of situations in twovdimensional stip. ‘This is sl very much on the surfice, but we are oa good ground. soa. Tecan be sid that inoue picture the ight hand igre i a cepresenta tion of something and also the left-hand one, bt even if this were not ‘the case, thei telative postion coud bea representation of something. (Namely a relation) Tree ne, te wh Wie sled ie pea SPR Te ey ere SEEN ary iene ie oman eee,in Bild tana Bexchangen darlin, det sich gil! Wi st ies mc ce scheint es wieder, als matin alle Bexchuagen logic sen, STs Eibecn durch ie den Zeicens veces ‘Was in “aRbSc" a und ec verbinde, ist sicht das “. Zeichen gir tose 0 bin cen ‘Man kann getadems sagen: stat, dieser Satz hat diesen wnd diesen sian dieser Sut stellt diesen und diesen Sachveshalt dar! (5. 4.031. Br bidet dh logsch 2. ‘Nur so kana der Ste wal oder flech sein: nut dadurch kann et mit der Wistichhet sbertinetimmen oder nicht Gbereinstimen, da8 et tin Bld cines Sachveshales ist. (Vl. 406] seit sin oii er aca Ben Scar a teh sgt fn cach -angegicirer™Zachen sn Shick Ea tay tee ese) ‘er Nim ist ee Bd des Bennet Der Sassari tna cn Bist (5.4031 “aologien agen is ao, nd nich Bier on Sch ARE Sat git vaonen neal (Des lee Hse Setup sat ne ames sagt nicht meh och ome ade ser ain) (V9 abe 4a] ate ist bag, dain “yds beacchnende Element ees Relation cotta sia kann, auch wen 0° und") aihtsbeeichen, Und Se Be Mel ‘is, a een Zen bin [Aber wie st dann mélich, af in einem Code “Kilo” belie wet Pe nic gut? Tier sage doch en snarker Zee evs ans, und sved bent ander erwasmtutedent!— Kana dena in der vorigen Bedeuteag, ds Wort “Kilo net wae coder fascist “ee * msi sich a er A picture can present tltions that do not exist! How is is How is that Now once more it looks aif ll sations mast be logic in onder for their existence to be guaranteed by that of the siga. * What connect and ein “ARb Se” isnot the sign bat ocnatener ofthe sae “nthe two singe Steers ‘We can say suaight away: Instead ofthis proposition has euch and such a sense! this proposition represents such and such a situation, [Sieaosn] Tk poreys it logically. niin this way can te operon be tre ofa: It can oly agree cor diagee with tty by bogs pre of sation. [S46 "eon i» pe os sna oan mf f see ats he ema ge ait ‘true nor false.) (Cf. 4.032] “e "Them i of he ing md "Teprptonnhig omtig in fests ep oy Togs say ning, hy a oo tent se domes Dp cgay nad Gea pee Sigg ands pon nr se mo moe et bby itself) [Ser 4.462 and 4.465.) ws Teis clear dha “Sy” can conti the signing element of ation ven if "x" and “y” do not stand for saying And in tha ese the ‘eition ithe only thing thei sgned in that sgn. pole fot “hilo” in» code to mea Tiel in docs set eg ad coed ng ifomatin totes ent For cathe nord“ with tat mening, be me ae?sero Jedenflls Kann man doch cia eifaches Zeichen dem Siane cnes| Satves uordaen.— [Nur die Wiklichkeitineresseee die Logik. Also die Sitze won in sowet se Bldr der Wiklichket snd ‘Wie aber KANN cir Wort wahr oder falsch sein? Es kana jodenals sich den Gedanensosdrcen, der mit der Wilichkeit bercinstimt ‘er nid Ubereinstzwnt. Det mal doch gegliedert sia! ‘Bin Wort kann nicht war ode flsch sein in dem Sinne, da ex nicht anit der Wiklchkelt Ubereintimmen kana, oder das Gegentell 6.10.14, ‘Der allgemeine Begriff xweier Komplexe, von denen der cine das logiache Bid des ander sia kann 80 ia cm Sinne dt. Die Obercias wcier Komplexe ist ffesbar itr und ‘kann daberaichesuagedeickt sondern nur geazigt werden. “ip ist waht, sagt nichts Andeees aus als pt wee ie wake” igenach dem oblgenaur ein Scheinsatz, wie alle Jone Zeichenvesbiadangen de schiabar etwas sagen WAS SUE gece in 0 snd ttm ap ado alle sein lgichen Funktionen (~ gu te) sitgegebea! (V5.4 ‘bidet Der Ausdruck “nicht mehr weiter zeleghae ist auch einer det mit “Funktion”, “Ding” ete af dem Index sthenden; wie aber wird das (gris was wi dutch fin ausdedcken wollen? (Man kann atielich weder voo eigem Ding och voo einem K.mplex sagen, sie sien niche mehr weiter nclegbat) 910.4 enn es cine anmitelbare Zuondnung von Reltionen gabe, 0 wwite die Frage: wie snd dana die Dinge tu einander mugeorinet, de In dicven Relsionen stehen? Gibe es eine direkt Zuordaung von {Relatonen obe Rickaiehe suf Tren Sim? sat0.14 Acagy mts ly pone coma spl ‘sense of a sentence. — lesan with he ogists lyin iy, And ths in sextet on in 10 fac as they ae pictures of reality a Bashow CAN ase soe tre of? Atay ate cot expres the gh ha gis docs aot agree th eal mast be articulated, “ ‘Tat A single word conor be veo fib in ir eset cannot agree with vey, or he oppose Gro.84. ‘The general concept of two complexes of which the one can be the logical picture of the other, and so in one sense i 50 “The agreoment of two cmplese i vio intra nd for hat seston cannot be expresed but an only be shew, Teter pti se iste” ie-by the ove-only a pseudo-proposin ike all shore connexons of sigos which appercndly sy someting tat can ‘only be shewn. = ver in 1F 2 proposition fais given, then alts logical fancons (~ 4 cae) ar aad ven wit (Cf ae] tte Complete and incomplete portal of a stxtion. (Panton piss argument portyed by futon plas aigment) ‘The expzeion “not rhe analyable” to i oe of thot which, together vith “uocton”, “thing” eae om be lade bat how dors ‘what we ry to express by mean oft get see? (Otome ano el ie of ig oto oles at ‘tis not further analysable.) ‘ing oof comps 1 there were such a thing san immediate correlation of tations, the question would be: How are the things that standin these relations correlated with one another in this case? Ty there such a thing as 4 dzect correlation of relations without consideration oftheir diction?(Ob wir ma det Annahme von “Beaichungen zwischen Besichungen” siaht nue eegefhre werden, durch die echeiabare Analog xvischen ‘dea Ausdnickene - “esichungenxwischen Dingea” und “Bezichungen avichen Beachangen”? cb mace be alles dieses Oherlagage irgndo trend nen Grou ceva Fan, ‘Dic Frage each der Moplichkeit von Esistenssitzn stcht nicht in er Mite sondem am Uranfang der Logik Alle Probleme, die das “Axiom of Infinity” mit sch bringt, sind schon in Sate (ne =x” 0 Wen! [V9 5.3351 ro. 30.14, (Oft macht man cine Bemeskung und siche erst spite, wie waht Unsere Schwicighit liegt jetzt dain, da in dee Sprache allem -Aastheine mah aie Aralpsebaskeitodet das Gegentll nicht wieder ecplegel wad. Dastet wir kane, wie escheat, aus des Sprache Sica ibrcamchmen, ob es B. wirklich Subjekt Prillat Tatachen fibeoler niche, Woe aber cower wie dase Tasache oder hr Gegsa- clanabion? Dies dh rep werden ‘Wie aber, wenn wie wns um de Frage der Zelegbaskit gar nit ammarea (Wie Woden dann sat 2ichen ainten dle mes bee deicinen, soadern aut darch he loischen Eigenschtenaysracken ‘Bejin) Dean auch der unaelgre Sate speget Ja loge Eigen finer Bedeatung wiedee, Wie ase wenn wi agen: dal en Sag weer zregbar bt, das cige sch, wena wit ihn dutch ‘Defalonea weit seegea, snd wi arbiter mi thm in jeder Pal ferade so als ware ex unanalsetbas. edenke, dad di “Sitze von den mendicher Anshlen” alle mit nics Zeiben Segestl snl ‘Abee baauchen wir—wenigtnt_ nach reges Methode nicht ander lone, Zen, om eZ] sane ce me eis? (Romunc ey het ict Grn an, ob sic auf Kasen odes Dinge ange Sande wie) Die Sitz, de von den urendlichea Zahlea handeln, kionen wie ale Sage det Logik dadrch eaten wetden, dad man de Zeichen ‘Ser baceinet (denn e tute a0 den umpringlichen Urziehen a an ‘Are we misled into assuming “relations between relations” merely through the apparent analogy berween the expressions oalone Rennes dune and “selaions between selations”? In all thee comiderations I am sumesbre making some srt of rsa “The question about the possibilty of existence propositions does sot come inthe mile but athe very St begining of loge All de problems dat go with the Axiom of Inity have aed ity have alely to be solved inthe proposition “CHs)x = 3". (Gf 5335 (One often makes a remark and only ater sees bw trv itis Our difficulty now lies in the fact that to all ces anal to all appearances aa iy, epost reed in ngage Tht i ea mst seems, guer fom langoageslone whether for ample there areal subject predate fas or po, uvhow coun we expres {histor posit? Ths watt be sewn But supor ha poe tht we di not otra al abot the question of snag? (We soa thn work with ia at donot aa for tering bt ey poems by ane ei logha popeios) For even the uaae propoion miss lp prope oe ‘eaning. Sopose thea we wet to ay The facta + popotion Sue saat nou fren ng yao ton and we work wth in evry cus cat ani wre ae sci i Renenber tat te “propotions abot ifr suber” xe ‘represented by means of finite signs. “ Buc do we not—at leat aecating to Frege method need 00 niin signs in ore t dee the sutberseoceeox? (Dect Sis depend on wheter sapped odes oro dng?) “The poposon eng with inte mer, ike ol poposons flog, ca be got by eluting the signe temecines or tno pnt Soe frig cert gt aed to he oil poe sigma Sose St in ne ep) pes a ss. oats Sea an een it Die Tne a orton enirfo e ass at towne ee ce oolpiiicgkinwen cae we me pr ng! pm ete Rai je cabelas re de tse na none Dion ee shi en ee ai ces macht. [Val §. 475] a iB phi Re i im. oleraar hence tessa Ed). hdacdy-eD y= 2 be ton he yk li ah ite tas mat ts corr ge setts aeons miraihew ae ra en len Si we on, lah. es ts See ts ey ius aa etc Bene ie aban prin Bip lve wach "oc bape aeafcnich aren = samt eng ene dn a et wiser ds Sate sane Se Mean Tevet ho oe Barr sin ein Tsoi Sd des Ste oes W veg ea none Sl eo es Wine laser metas eee wre ya Ve oli ge SEER. Da et 14.10. ie es denn cine Wissenschaft der vollstindig veralgemeinetien| Sits? Dies Hinge hichst unwahescheinlih, ete, 10, the sigs must henseves poses ll the lope properties of what they sepa ‘The via fact hat a completely assed proposon cote fst ny sess ie ote! oe at Eancamp inacngcepetenaton of te word tough Iangoage 1s would be acces to iavetgte the defiions ofthe cartial suber mote ety inorder to understand there sb of ropes thos le the Aron ofl. Logic takes ae of ul all we have todo is to lok and soit does te IGF 445] ‘Let ws consider the proportion: “there isa class with only one member" Or, whit comes tothe same thing, the propodtion: CH Ga)tetrde > ym If we take “(Gx)x =x” it might be understood to be tautological since it could not get writen down at alli wen ase, but Revel ‘This propsiton canbe investigated in place of the Axiom of Iaaiy. 1 koow that the following sentences as they stand are nonsensical: Can we speak of numbers there at only thing? Leif forename the ‘word ony consied of an thing and of noting cs, could we sy that there as one thing? Rossel would probably say I hee one thing then there is also a function (8x) # = x. But— If this function does ae do it hen we can only tall off there isa ‘material fonction whichis atisied aly by ove gument, How is ¢ with propositions like GH) Gide son of tee «teh Gm 1s one of thee a tautology? Are thee proposons of ome ear they properon oe ab a Butt ws remember ht is the rasan whe sgn of eae ality that are characteristic of logic. a For i there such a ching a « science of completly gencalsed Proposition This wounds eatemaly pooleDaa int lar, Wenn es vilig veslgemeinst Sir gibt, dana hing® she Sina von Leiner wiltlichen ch abl Dana aber [bn cine sce Zeichenverbindung die Wet ar durch ihe eigenen Ibguchen Eigensciaften dace. h, se Kaan nicht falsch, und she war tun. Also gibe es keine wollstndig verallgemeinrten Sivan." Aber je die Anweading! [Nam aber de Site: “(3)” ‘iad “™~ Giga). 42". ‘Welcher von ihaen it tatologisch, wecher kontdiktosisch? Timmer wieder entstcht das Bedarhis nach ence vergleichenden ‘asammesstellung von Site, die i internen Bexidhungen sehen. ‘Man kona mi diesem Boch gerdens Bildeafelnanegea. (ie Tautologie vi, was sie x8 sgn scheint, die Kontraittion alg des Gop von dan, was sie ws agen scl.) sist Klar, 440 wir alle Oheshaupt miglichen véligalgemelnen Sate bilden komen, sobald wns nu ain Space gegcben it, Und ‘iran int cs doch laum zz glabea, da solche Zichenverbindungen ‘wirklich cowas ther de Welt ausagensolten, — Anderrcts aber (Beser grsucle Obergang vom eementaren Satz zum vollgalle- ‘meineall” ‘Man kana sagen de valligallgemeinen Satze kann man alle ¢ piri biden. 5 10.14 is scheint doch, als Kinnte die blofe Baistenz der in “(@aa)- cscbaltenen Fornen die War oder Palceit dese Sates Sieh bestmeat Es scheint also nicht ander, da . By dic erncinang hence Elementarates waht sc Aber wire dese ‘Rossge net schon den so dr Versi bezels? COffenbar kénnen wir jeden ganz allgemeinea Sat auflsn als die ‘oder Vervinang det Exes igend einer Ast von Tat ‘chen ber gilt ies nit won allen Si ede Zeicenverbndung, di eoeas ther then eigenen Sina aus sagen scheint in Schein (walle Site dee Logi). er Satz sol cinca Sachverhaltlogich vortilden, Das kann er set doch aur dadurch dad seinen Elementen wilktch Gegeo- ‘Kinde sugeonioet wurden Wean dies ‘san im ganz allgemenen “This is chars these ste completely geoecled propestins, then thee sense docs not depend on ty abeay formation of sgl In that ase, howere, mck conneion of int ean pret te world ‘only by means of is own logical property, Le itn nt be fae, eat bet. So thee a av couple greene’ propa ‘Bot sow the applicant "But now the proposion: “Ux 42” tad (dba). ‘Which of thee tologiel which cotadicoey? ‘We keep on nesing comparive arrangement of propesitons spiteg tn toch cl coed a (The tautology srs ohat i appears to, the conection shes the oppuinof what coppers toy) 1 ces that we cn form all the completely gene propositions that atc pone at alls son as we te merely Bren «agape, Ad ‘hats why il searny ere at such consions of dt shold spy sy epsing so he won a al mee deal tation fom clmeararypropostion to teomple ete one! mess ‘We ean sy: The completely gene proposons can alle formed api. Yee i docs mr lok aif the mer existence ofthe fom contained jn "(lep) fe" could by ll dexrmine the teu oe Eluchod of this propordoa! So does not appear muito that eg the egnion of o cena proposition should te tre, Bet wel ot {hi asco fal ouch he Ses of me? Otwiosaly we can conceive every quite gee proposition a he, AMizmation oe ngaon of th eno soe and of act, Ba es ‘Bienor ol ft pepo? Every conneion of igs which appears to say something abou its own sess pseudo proposion (eal proposons of gi), ‘The proposition supposed to give a logical model of stuton 1. can suey only dots, however, bocase objects fare een a= trailyconelaed wt elements Now if hsb note celaStench der Fal so te ebm wi eras auealb iim data soll Ian Saar salen wits Probe die Dinge msamnes, svi ne ach in ‘Wirlcheis aber ale so vetalten braces, wit TEnnen ber nicht etwas Unbgicder sasanmeastele, denn ars teitte wir in det Spach nit det Logik hemos, konnen— Wenn ‘Reg der gu allemeine Sate nur “ce Konan” exalt go kann Siar ak mchtine sein seinen ngches Geb, und anni mer tun sls une eine egena olsen Eigenschaion mo aagen-—-Wenn es ganz Site iby met ellen vir in Fin pobowcve susan? [gl 4031 5.05] ‘Wenn man sch vor der Wabthit frchtct (wie ich jt), 60 ahnt aman se die ll Wash. Ich habe ies de der Sat lemente mu yen Bedeo- sue ins al Ferenc le er Sa ma ‘Ragen in Berdhrang stb und des Veligemeiner eines Sezes fic dann den Einscen der Fuley bis ceich der gane alge secpe Sat gang bolle Aber sit discs Bl? (Ziebe ch wt ce Parc ean ha da Cee (Va os 16, 10,24. Nun chin es aber, als peichea genau dictben Grade di eh softies um 20 eigen, dd "(Guys nlt foch sein iw, epic die ah ie ad "~ ing ‘lac in lanes und her gr sich elaprundlegender Fee. Dena 2st gar let nmschen, waren gerade der erste Sate und echt Ser tae ie Tavolope sein sal, Vrgi doch cht, dal ach ie ‘Eounditcion"“p pee ict wa sin Kann und doch sls Slogaches Gebid i “Angeaomanen, da Keine Verncing snes Blemenasanes waht ing Ri deen Palle "Verneinang” net einen anderen Sina alt invemgegengecten Fale “(ad y()"—von diesem Sata scheint et fast. geil, dad or swede Hfcioge oth ene Kontaiton ist. Hie spit sich at robes enerbor a ‘Wan es gan algemine Sitze gibt, so scheint & alto, als wate solthe Site probeweise Zasammeastellungen “logucher Konstan ea") aque general proposition, thn iti dil ose how e shoul eepee- St ating ouade fle. Ta the propotiton weso to speak—asrange things experiment ashy 3 whet bn aay bo we ct sey get ‘eugene fr dr oa we sol veo beget ‘Sure log langage-Dut ifthe gute pearl proposition cen: {iss af Site! conan, hea i camot be anyng more fo 86 thar_“aplf'a lope auc, and exnnot do taytueg more ha, ther wis own lial properties there ae quite gene roponons-oet do we eeange expeientaly a these [Gf 40st fad sos) ‘When one i fightned ofthe truth (at Iam now) then it i never she nll eth that one has a nln SE Here egatded the redatons of the elements of the propaiton to hie meanings as feces, sto ay, by mean of which the proposition isin cones with the outs work and dhe generation of a propo tion ia tat exe lke the diving in of fers en faa dae ‘compel genenlpropotion is que holed, Bute this pure ge Oe Fey Lae cee hen Tyne 4) 230 60.4. Now, however, it looks as if exacly the same grounds as those I prociced to shew that “(dxyf).4x could not be false would be an segumentshewing that “~ Gy). 4x” could not be false; and here 2 fandamental mistake makes is appearance. For ite quite impossible tw see why jast the fist proposition and not the second is sopposed tobea tautology. Bur do aot forge thatthe contradiction "p-~ p"” fe. te. cannot be tre and is nevertheless itself logical struc. ‘Suppose that 20 negation of an elementary proposition i ese, bat not “negation” another see inthis cae than in the opposite case? “(l4)(2)4e"of this proposition it appears almost cera that it is nether 2 tautology nor contradiction. Here the problem conics extremely sharp. rote. If there are quite genenl propositions, then it looks at if such Propositions were experimental combinations of “logical constants)Kann man dena aber nicht de ganze Welt vollstindig mit ganz allgemeinen Sitzen beschteiben? (Dar Problem sgt sch von allen Seen) Sprache mu kommen, brucher maa Namen etc. ur dadutch cinz fieen, indeantmaa tach einem “(da)” sagee "und dieses lst A” swe [Vel 5.536) ‘Man kann als cin Bild der Welt eatwerfen, one 2u sagen, was was dence, [Nehmen wir», B. an, die Welt betande aus den Dingen A und B udder Eigenscaft F, und es wire F(A) der Fall und nicht FO). Diese Welt kannten wit auch durch die folgenden Sttze bescheeben: Cay) Gd) a4 phe. ~ prude we GW) = $ Gsy@an—xve8y Und hier braucht stan auch Sitze yoo der Axt des lewten zwei, tum die Gegenstnde idenifsieren m Konnen. ‘As alledem folgtaatslich, da ex garg alemene Sate gb Genage oben nicht der emte Satz Gey )fe.mpyxny)? Die Schwicrpicit der Ideotifziening Kann maa dadutch wegschafen, inden mandi ganze Welt ini algemeinen Sat bschrcibe, welcher anfinge “xyes. ge -RS-- J” und mun folge ein Togitches Produk, et. ‘Wean wir sagen “f itt cine Einhetefunktion und (3).4x", so ‘eit das roviel wie: “es gibt nr ein Ding"! (Wir sind hier cen- dar um den Sate “(la)\9):y — x" heramgekoramen.) 18 10,14 ‘Mein Fehler liege offenbarin cine falichen Auffssung det logischen Abbildung durch den Sa. ine Aussage kana aicht den logschen Bau der Welt betrefen, ‘dean damit cine Ausiage Sbechaupt moplich sei, damit ein Satz Smos haben ears, mal die Welt echoa den logischen Bau haben den se chen hat. Die Logik dee Welt ist aller Wahr- und Falschet primi. But is it not possible to descbe the whole world completly by means of completely gene propositions? em 0 ‘onal sides) (ie pein en ‘Yo, the world could be completely described by completely genera propoitions, and hence withot sing any 20m of names OF other ‘enoving signs. And in onder to ative at ordinary language one would nly eed fo introduce names, et. by saying after an “(ls)”, “and this e's AM and 50.00. (Cf 95526] “Thus its possible to devise a pice ofthe woe without saying what sa sepeesenation of what Tet us suppose eg, that the world consisted ofthe things A and B and che property F, and that F(A) were the eate and not EB). This ‘word could alo be described by means ofthe following propositions Cay). any de ~ prdages wm awe Gay) G2 "ave = y ‘And here one also aceds propositions of the type of the last two, oly inorder wo be able to iden the objens. From allthis, of courte it fllows that tlre are comply gers! amps! But ise the St proposition sbove enough: xy g.—y 4)? “The dic of ideation can be done away with by dseing the whole word ina single general proposition beginning: “Ce. Zio es RS. "and dow follows a logieal product ee I we say “iui function and (2) 4", that as much ato say: ‘There is only one thing! (By thin means we have appre go round the proposition (0)G)7 =") io, My mistake obviouly is in fle conception of logiealporsapl bythe proposition, ‘A atement cannot be concerned with the logical structure of the ‘world for in onder for statement tobe ponte at lyin ones fora propoution toe cansnur of making sahsn, the world must aleady Kuve jos the logical stocrre that i as ‘The logic of the world i loc to all th and flchood.\ Base bevoriegend cin Satz aberhaupe Sinn haben a Eogchen Konstan Hedetang haber 19.10.34 Dic Beschreibuag der Welt durch Site ist nur dadureh moglich, dad das Besechnete sich sin eigenes Zeichen ist! Anwendung — Beleuchtung von Kants Frage "Wie it reine Mathematik mélich?” durch die Theorie der Tautologien! Bs leudhtet cin da man den Bau der Welt obne irgend welche [Namen zo non bescreiben koanen mud. (V7. .526) “Aus dem Sate muf man dea logischen Bau des Sachveshlts ersehen, Agden Sennen ten Ss is a ee sean Soe Ss eS Sr es esl nee mn nee ne wa ite eg ls Nm eas Se rs nae as aoe ee a yracy hig dry Spa h Tie, lng oe So aie Hkngcneh te ade bi Pa Ste sing Ser spencer ce Se EN Seem al a py te oe" ott Durie ad ned te a es te zee cent a ms So wee | ane zat | “Eat il ite ipeaechnang ee Wat ss Rong speaking: before any proposition ean make sense a ll eel constana mst have efeence® * ‘The description of the world by means of proposiion® on posible Deaie what i sigaied is not its own Sgn Application Light on Kane's question “How is pure mathematics posible?” trough the theory of tutgicn pete 1k is obvious that we matt be able to describe the struct ofthe sword without mentioning any mame. [Cf 5:526] ‘The proposition must enable us to see che logeal structure of the cnet em cate gn ote be meen oe semen mate ie“ 2 pe ee rae mole et cle i ete ac irlaecdanene eo tc ses Sheal ps portraying I). ICf. Tht ng ore thy of ilps! an of loguge get pio oman sour the nature of the Ta eyo gid pry by mega chan operon! yam of wos ae sera kei et ern le Te me in oper rome nt ps AOE eS Yee te ee a Jin this notation; and therefore what is common in P ise wm? | andere cart | themes st | [5.512], ieee ih wees Le ai i eS Ot arg wena SE Scent esr te Sie ow ‘Ee Netra hn fhe Tras, erbe dec ta gle Cosas sees ‘have “Bedeucung’, (Tramsat,) os conan ottSebeinsitze sind solche, dic, wean analysiort, das, was se sagen solltes, doch nar wieder zig. as Gefih, da der Satz einen Komplex auf die Art der Ruselschea ‘eschribungea beschzibe, echgertge sich jtt : Der Satz beschrebt ‘den Komplex durch seine logischen Kigenschafien. Der Satz konstriet cine Welt mit Hilfe seineslogischen Gerste, ‘und daram kann man am Satz auch schen, wie sich alles Logische epee, eam wt te mana de ace Sat ‘Seblte Gikn ee. (So. kana ich schen dad, wenn “(6)42" Twire, dcser Satz im Widerprich stiade mit einem Suze “fa") (Wal aon) ‘Dad sich von materelenSitze auf ganz allgemeine Site schieBen lage—dad) dice 11 jenen in bet wllen internen Bezichungen chen Kinnen sige, dal die ganz allgemeiaen Site logische ‘Koostruktionen von Sachvezhalten sad. Ist ie Rosellche Deion dee Null ike unin” Kann an ogden rn eum oe mes ies Stratos Bese de ee pee fs Se nee Got e Sie FE Soar pee {(Cd)Xx) ~ $x. Mu} Def. A{(E$)-Cs) ga: $y.$2. y= Ha = O(Gu)} Def (Das Gileichheitsxcichen in der geschweiften Klammer Ktinate. man ugeiserans o= TOMO ~ a} Pre ltaagae rtnn ties Scans tia rtinteett [Nach meiner Definition der Klassen ist (x) ~A(fx) die Aussage, abi) ain, ad ce Def der Null dato = 46) "prc ie Ke le desig Kander Flat fe we SEEN Heme i demo) Preudo propositions are suchas, when analysed, tum out afer all coaly to shew what they were supposed toy. Here we have a jusifeation forthe fling that the proposition ‘The completly analysed proposition must image its reference. We might also say that our difcuky sears from the completely generalized propoition’s not appeating to be complex—— It does not appear, lke all other propositions, to consist of arbi- ‘rarily symbolizing componeat pasts which are nied ina logical oc, Teappeas not wo aves form but itself o bea form complete initele