[Wittrs] Re: How to Verify Wittgenstein
- From: Rajasekhar Goteti <rgoteti@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:57:26 +0530 (IST)
One word identifies another word.One word verifies the other word.Wittgenstein
is a word or name for us.So one name i,e me wish to identify and verify the
other name.How do you like it.Core of language is division so there is me and
the world.One feeling felt by many in so many aspects and so many ways.One
sentence stands for several interpretations and explanations since inference
varies from person to person.Combinations and permutations are the causes for
their said effects.Let us put an impossible question to our selves,i,e what is
beyond a word? Does any one tries to see beyond word?Is it possible to verify
these questions?thank you
sekhar
--- On Fri, 2/10/09, BruceD <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: BruceD <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Wittrs] Re: How to Verify Wittgenstein
To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, 2 October, 2009, 8:03 AM
--- 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/
Try the new Yahoo! India Homepage. Click here. http://in.yahoo.com/trynew
Other related posts:
