Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
II 230
Arbitrary/Arbitrariness/Convention: number systems are arbitrary. - Otherwise a different notation would correspond to different facts.
II 231
Of course you can give sense to new sentences and symbols. - That is why the conventions are called arbitrary. >Conventions, >Symbols, >Sentences, >Sense.
II 236
Arbitrariness/Arbitrary/Law/Physics/Laws of Nature/Wittgenstein: E.g. perturbations: it is arbitrary whether we declare our laws to be right, and say we just do not see the planet, or whether we call the laws incorrect. - If we say that a planet must be nearby, we define a grammatical rule. >Grammar, >Rules, >Laws.
II 238
The laws of logic, such as those of the sentence of the excluded third are arbitrary! - In fact, we often use contradictions. - E.g. I like it and I do not like it. >Contradictions.
---
VI 115
Arbitrariness/Arbitrary/Grammar/Rules/Purpose/Wittgenstein/Schulte: E.g. the rules of cooking are not arbitrary, because they are defined by the purpose of cooking. - On the other hand: Grammar: is not defined by the purpose of language - only the grammatical rules constitute the meaning. - Therefore, they are not committed to any meaning. >Meaning. - ((s) Grammar/Wittgenstein: = logic).
---
IV 31
Not Arbitrary/Tractatus: the sign of the complex does not dissolve arbitrarily. - E.g. aRb. >Signs, >Complexes.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.