[Wittrs] Re: How to Verify Wittgenstein
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:33:02 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@...> wrote:
> Here is what I want to say: what needs to be seen?
>
> What he is saying is that thought is sentential. That's his point.
> That the flow or structure of thought is language-like.
> You don't need an empirical account of anything here,
You don't need evidence that in fact thought is sentence-like?
> because it is given to you as a therapy,
but a therapy based on a false theory of how we think couldn't be
helpful.
> if you would dispute the premise (idea), the goal would be to see what
you meant --
> to see whether your grammar might be knotted up.
I don't dispute the premise that language is sentence like but want a
specific theory that is testable before I accept it as a fact. Is that
inappropriate?
> This is exactly what Philosophical Investigations is doing.
> It's Wittgenstein showing you how to philosophize.
>
> Imagine someone saying, "when I think in language,
> there is more than the meaning of words in my mind.
> There is extra meaning." One would not say: where is the empiricism
for that?
Why not ? That is just the question asked in some research yielding
interesting answers about bodily feels, etc. The term "extra meaning"
would puzzle me, of course.
> Given the way minds are...
Are you suggesting that we already know "how minds are" and no further
study needed.
I'm not trying to be difficult. I don't have the answer. Just sharing
what puzzles me.
bruce
==========================================
For all your Wittrs needs: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
