Problem of unexisting antecedent

Question

It’s not a matter of Moore’s knowing that there’s a hand there, but rather that we should not understand him if he were to say “Of course I may have erred about this”. We should ask “What is it like to make such an error as that?” – e.g. what’s it like to discover that it was an error?

It seems that "It" refers to Moore's law; however, he did not mention it before. How's that possible?

Mr Wordy · Accepted Answer

"It" in "It's not a matter of..." seems to be a "situational it" which doesn't specifically refer to anything previously mentioned. It just refers to "the situation in general". Similarly,

"It's disgraceful that..."

"It's been mentioned that..."

"It's well known that..."

and so on.

But since I haven't a clue what the author is trying to say here, perhaps I shouldn't be trying to answer the question! It's not Wittgenstein again is it? Good luck!

Wholegrain · Answer

I think you are right. Thank you.

CalifJim · Answer

I take It's not a matter of X to be an idiomatic way of saying X is not the central point, X is not what we should be focusing on, X is not the point in question, X is not what we should be concerned about, etc., so I agree with Mr. Wordy that it refers, at least obliquely, to the general situation under discussion as developed earlier in the text.

It's not a matter of lack of intelligence; it's that she has never been taught how to do that sort of thing. (Probably something like "her failure (to do something)" is the first it here, and something like "the reason" is the second it.)

It's not a matter of luck; a person has to practice this game for years to do well at it. (Probably something like "being able to win this game" is the initial it here.)

CJ

Wholegrain · Answer

Ah, I think he's saying it's not a matter of wondering if he knows it or not, but rather how he can possibly be wrong--Wittgenstein believes that physical object necessarily exist. How would it be like to know absolutely that?

CalifJim · Answer

wholegrainAh, I think he's saying it's not a matter of wondering if he knows it or not, but rather how he can possibly be wrong--Wittgenstein believes that physical object necessarily exist. ~~How~~ What would it be like to know that absolutely ~~that~~?

That's a reasonable interpretation of the text. I don't believe completely, however, that Wittgenstein believes that physical objects necessarily exist. It seems to me that his whole approach is based on the premiss that it is meaningless to talk about believing whether physical objects exist. We all act as if they certainly do exist. Our actions with regard to physical objects are so deeply ingrained in our thought processes (he is saying, I believe) that it is futile (or, more properly, meaningless) to doubt their existence -- unless you want to do philosophy of the kind that abstracts ideas to such an extreme that they become removed from reality -- removed from the way language is actually used. I believe he finds such abstracted forms of philosophy useless because they violate, in his opinion, the principles of the proper use of language.

CJ

Problem of unexisting antecedent

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions