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
lies in it
is there
// how it has a place there // , and don't understand the nature of this “must”. We believe
:
, –
it must
lie
be
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
outside
out of
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
them
it
. It never enters our head to take them off.
      How can I understand the
sentence
proposition
now,
when
if
the analysis is supposed to be able to show whatch ˇit is I really understand? – Here the idea of understanding as a
strange
peculiar
mental process enters in.
      The strict, andch clear rules of the logical construction of
a
the
proposition appear to us as something in the back ground, –
lodged
embedded
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
by
with
it. The ideally
rigorous
rigid
construction appears to me as something concrete: – I had used a simile; becaus but because of the grammatical illusion, that to the
genel name
concept word
there corresponds one thing,
that which
what
is in common to all
the
its
objects falling under it, it did not seem to be a simile.