Wittgenstein's discussion more likely responds to Hegel's treatment of measure. See
https://ucris.univie.ac.at/portal/en/publications/no-evaluative-authority-is-beyond-evaluation(ce294323-0895-4cd7-9ec3-11533cc20662).html
Alan Isaac


On 12/21/2022 3:52 AM, Robert Tye wrote:
> Somewhat like Russell, Popper and Gellner I hold (now old fashioned) negative views concerning  the later work of Wittgenstein. Unlike the prior critics I have read, (and indeed the mass of Late Wittgenstein fans), I think it important to highlight the clear very close historical links between Wittgenstein and Keynes.  Keynes’ patronage seem to be a platform upon which Wittgenstein built his later work.
>
> With that in mind, it seems to me important to search that later work for specific comments on economic matters, and I can only find one group of entries, the comments on metrology regarding “soft rubber rulers” etc  (I append the passage).  Did I miss anything?
>
> This “soft rubber ruler” idea apparently derives from a dishonest cloth salesman with an elastic ruler in a 1936 American musical comedy “Strike Me Pink”, which Wittgenstein saw.
>
> State imposition of hard (stone) rulers starts at least with Gudea c. 2144–2124 BC.  Whilst conventions vary, civil and religious authorities for more than 4,000 subsequent years have overwhelmingly associated honesty itself with the use of rigid rulers.  Prima facie then, Wittgenstein seems in 1936 to want to overturn a central notion of honest behavior that had governed civilised society for at least 4,000 prior years
>
> I would be interested to get any alternative interpretation of the text
>
> Robert Tye, York, UK
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://independent.academia.edu/RobertTye__;!!IaT_gp1N!30gBIIbGQjSTxq1kHRQXV8lm_wlB2p3Lii4e9rJRB8cgslAYwjMKoq8NzSYRLyuomgVi0TjdSaNjZA$
>
> Wittgenstein:  “How should we get into conflict with truth, if our foot rules were made of very soft rubber instead of wood and steel? – “Well, we shouldn’t get to know the correct measurement of the table.” – You mean: we should not get, or could not be sure of getting, that measurement which we get with our rigid rulers. So if you had measured the table with the elastic rulers and said it measured five feet by our usual way of measuring, you would be wrong; but if you say that it measured five feet by your way of measuring, that is correct. – “But surely that isn’t measuring at all!” – It is similar to our measuring and capable, in certain circumstances, of fulfilling ‘practical purposes’. (A shopkeeper might use it to treat different customers differently.)” RFM I §5b