“But isn't the explanation inexact surely || it an inexact explanation after all?” – Yes, why || Why should we not || shouldn't we call it “inexact”? Only || But let us || let's understand what “inexact” means. For, in the first place, it does not || doesn't mean “useless”, otherwise it would mean, || we should say: “inexact for this || such & such a purpose”; in the second place: – let us || let's consider what as opposed to this inexact explanation we should call an “exact” || we should call an “exact” explanation as opposed to this inexact one. Perhaps that of drawing a chalk mark || line on the place, of marking off a “district” || ‘district’. – But then it occurs to us at once || at once occurs to us that the chalk line has a breadth; so that || thus a colour boundary would be more exact. But does this exactitude still have any function here || has this exactness here any function || any function here, doesn't it run idle? And we haven't even determined yet what is to pass as || we're to call “crossing this sharp boundary”; how, with what instruments, it || this fact is to be established, etc..
     We understand what is meant by setting || it meansto set || , setting a watch exactly to the minute || to the exact time, or – regulating it so that it runs accurately. But what if someone should ask || asked: is this exactness an ideal exactness, or how far does it approximate to it? – We may || can, of course, talk about || of measurements of time || time measurements in connection with || for which there is a different and as we should say greater exactness || exactness, and, as we should say, a greater one than there is in connection with time measurements || that of a time measurement by a watch. Where the words “setting it || the clock exactly to the minute || to the exact time” have a different, although || though a related, meaning, and

Ts-226,63

where reading the clock is a different process, etc..– If now I say to someone, || : “You ought to come more punctually to luncheon || to lunch more punctually; you know that it begins || we start exactly at one o'clock”, – is it not really exactness that is being spoken of here, – because someone may say, || could you say, there is || there's no question of exactness here at all: “think of how the time is ascertained || measured in a laboratory, or in an observatory, there you see what ‘exactness’ means”?
     “Inexact”, – that is || that's really an expression of blame, and “exact” an expression of || that really suggests blame, and “exact” suggests praise. And that means surely: || that's to say: what is || what's inexact does not || doesn't achieve its aim as completely as what is || what's more exact. So that it all depends on || upon what we call “the aim” || the “aim”. Is it || Are we being inexact if we don't tell the joiner the breadth of the table to

1 1000

of a millimeter || an inch? And || and if we don't give the distance of the sun to the meter || the nearest foot?
     Think || So think therefore of the elastic ways of using || how we stretch the use of the words “exact”, || and “inexact”. – One ideal of exactness is not || There isn't one ideal of exactness provided; we don't know what we ought to understand by such a thing || such a thing's to be like – unless you yourself stipulate what is to be called so || “the ideal of exactness”. But it will be difficult for you || you will find it difficult to hit upon || make such a stipulation; || , one that || which satisfies you.