My post doesn't set out to explain Walter's "joke", but separates it out from Wittgenstein's point about pointing, which is a serious one and not a mere "joke" at all. Don't you just hate it when someone thinks you've explained their joke... Dnl On Friday, 9 May 2014, 14:55, Walter C. Okshevsky <wokshevs@xxxxxx> wrote: Don't you just hate it when somebody explains your joke. Walter O MUN P.S. Zeno walks halfway into a bar ... Quoting Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > >I have 2 children. In both cases, whenever I tried to teach them the meaning > of > a word by pointing, they would look from my finger up my arm to my shoulder.> > > In all my psychiatric experience, Walter's children have a very odd, almost > unnatural, response to 'pointing'. Rudy has had things pointed out to him > many times and Rudy also uses 'pointing' as part of his way of conveying his > meaning (to a point that is now sometimes embarrassing in public, and so he > is now being taught 'Don't point'). > > > When Wittgenstein uses similar language to Walter, about how when someone > points another could take the direction to be up to their shoulder, > Wittgenstein is creating a striking image to show that what 'pointing' seeks > to convey cannot be determined by the mere act of 'pointing' (if we think > otherwise it is only because we are so accustomed to the sense of 'pointing' > that its sense seems to be contained in the 'pointing': an illusion that > parallels the illusion where we are so accustomed to the sense of words that > the sense seems to be contained in the words). It is part of Wittgenstein's > position that 'pointing' could not function as a means of picking out > "things" from the external world if the only reaction humans had to > 'pointing' was like Walter's children, and humans merely looked from the > finger up the arm to the shoulder. > > > So 'pointing' raises questions that parallel other fundamental questions > about language. Is the sense of words contained in the words? Do words say > their own sense? Gary Lineker is an ex-soccer player, now soccer pundit and > presenter for the BBC: last night the BBC homepage had a headline "Lineker > backs Stones for England World Cup Team." The instant reaction is surely that > the Stones are too old now for the team. A more considered reaction is that > this is an example where clearly the sense of "Lineker backs Stones for > England World Cup Team" is not contained in or said by the words "Lineker > backs Stones for England World Cup Team". > > Donal > London > > > > > On Thursday, 8 May 2014, 23:38, Walter C. Okshevsky <wokshevs@xxxxxx> wrote: > > I have 2 children. In both cases, whenever I tried to teach them the meaning > of > a word by pointing, they would look from my finger up my arm to my shoulder. > Today, one is a successful veterinarian, the other, a lion tamer with Cirque > de > Soleil. > > Cheers, Walter > > > Quoting Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > Okay, I acknowledge that the Investigations does not say that language is > > never ever learned or taught by pointing at stuff, only that it is a > > simplistic and incomplete account. This wasn't exactly the main point of > > contention, I mentioned it because it seems to be the account of language > > learning and use largely assumed in The Tractatus, and later at last > > partially rejected in the PI. > > > > Now, I don't have kids, so I would ask those of yous who are parents and > > grandparents whether you often used pointing at things to teach your kids / > > grand-kids the first language. > > > > O.K. > > > > > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Donal McEvoy > > <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > > > > > > >The theory that language is learned by pointing at things is attacked in > > > the Investigations. (The poor Augustine is made the culprit for it.)> > > > > > > What theory? Investigations may (rightly) reject any idea that the mere > > > act of pointing itself conveys the necessary sense (for what the pointing > > > seeks to convey cannot be determined by the mere act of pointing) - and > so > > > "pointing at things" cannot be sufficient to teach the requisite sense > > > (e.g. that "table" is a name). But where does Investigations suggest that > > > "pointing at things" plays no role in our learning language (i.e. that we > > > never learn a noun, like "table", via any "pointing at things")? Nowhere. > > > On the contrary "pointing at things" is one of many tools used in > teaching > > > and learning language. > > > > > > A great deal of interpretative voodoo has been written about > > > Investigations and then passed off as if this secondhand account is > > > Wittgenstein's account. > > > > > > It is true that Investigations is against the idea that language is > > > learnt merely by pointing at things (a "merely" not stated in Omar's > > > contention), but equally it is false to say Investigations attacks the > > > idea that "pointing at things" may be involved (indeed importantly > > > involved) in learning a language. > > > > > > Wittgenstein's fundamental point about the Augustinian picture of > learning > > > names is not that it is false but that we should not be mislead that this > > > "picture" captures in language the naming-relation. The "picture" makes > > > sense as a picture of how we learn names because we already understand > > > the naming-relation and interpret the "picture" in that light (and > > > because we have been shown names in ways that appear to correspond to the > > > "picture"): but a creature with no understanding of a naming-relation > > would > > > not necessarily have the naming-relation conveyed to them by the > > > Augustinian picture, and a creature that only learnt a very different > > sense > > > of a word via "pointing at things" might interpret the "pointing at > > things" > > > in Augustine's "picture" as showing that very different sense (and not as > > > conveying the sense of words as names) - i.e. the "picture" does not say > > > the sense of the naming-relation, although it may show that > > > naming-relation to a user of language who understands how the > > > naming-relation may be shown as Augustine pictures. > > > > > > Donal > > > On Thursday, 8 May 2014, 20:02, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > That was to be: (the aforementioned) "were saying intelligible though > > > not necessarily true things about language in language." (I didn't mean > to > > > suggest that they the things they were saying were tautologies.) > > > > > > O.K. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Omar Kusturica > <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > > > > As I understand, it is being argued that such terms as 'meaning' or > > > 'reference' cannot be explained in language since they are about > language, > > > and language cannot be used self-referentially. What do we 'show', then, > > to > > > explain to someone the meaning of 'meaning' ? Honestly I have no idea. If > > I > > > needed to teach someone whose first language is other than English the > > > meaning of 'the word 'meaning', I am pretty sure that the last thing I > > > would try would be to draw something on the board. If I cannot translate > > it > > > into his native language, I would have to use explanations, examples etc. > > > drawn from (English) language. > > > > > > The theory that language is learned by pointing at things is attacked in > > > the Investigations. (The poor Augustine is made the culprit for it.) > > > > > > The notion that language cannot be used self-referentially strikes me as > > > clearly false. Consider the following: > > > > > > This sentence is short. > > > > > > I would think that this is a perfectly intelligible (and true) > > > self-referential statement. In fact, we do use language to talk about > > > language very often, and at least some of the time intelligibly. People > > > like Russell, Putnam, Kripke and others have all said intelligible > (though > > > necessarily true) things about language in language. > > > > > > O.K. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Donal McEvoy > > <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > > > > > > > >3. We are now challenged to disprove the thesis by saying things in > > > language which we are told in advance are unsayable, even though we have > > no > > > idea what such things might be. > > > > > > 4. In such form, the challenge obviously cannot be met, so 1. and 2. are > > > taken as proven.> > > > > > > At to 4, no: if W is right, his POV can only be shown - it cannot be > > > proved, still less expressed (though we may use expressions to show it). > > > > > > As to 3, no: the challenge is to give an account that explains how names > > > name - it is left open whether this can be done, even though W's position > > > is that it cannot. No question is begged: and it is assumed that, if such > > > an account can be given, it will not be "saying" the "unsayable" but > > rather > > > showing that what W thinks is unsayable can in fact be said. > > > > > > JLS' post might allude to the view that 'Fido' names the dog Fido if it > is > > > used as a name of Fido: but this does not *explain* *how *'Fido' names > > > Fido (it no more does this than saying "'The snow is white' is true iff > > the > > > snow is white" *explains how* the linguistic statement can refer to a > > > non-linguistic reality). To give examples where names name is not to give > > > an explanation of the naming-relation but merely to illustrate it: what > > the > > > challenge asks is to provide an explanation so that the relation is > > > captured in language, perhaps by way of some "theory" or "criterion" by > > > which we can determine that a word is being used as a name and not > > > otherwise.* > > > > > > > > > Dnl > > > Ldn > > > *Consider the difference between a dog owner uttering 'Fido' when (a) > > > asked the name of his dog (b) shouting at Fido - (b) is not a use of > > 'Fido' > > > to *name* Fido in the same sense as (a), or perhaps at all (and even in > > > (a) 'Fido' may *report *Fido's name rather than 'name' Fido in some other > > > sense, as when (c) the Queen *names* a ship 'Fido'). > > >  On Thursday, 8 May 2014, 13:05, palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > â€‹wittgenstein was confused in a rather benign way. > > > in his view a statement of the form "king Leonidas is brave" is not > > > 'saying' anything since it fails to be a representation/proposition of a > > > fact (the traditional cretinism of thinking that the abstract is not > > > representable coupled with crappy early behaviorism is the key to > > > understand the view, hence "KL died defending the Thermooilis" is a > > > representation of the fact that KL's heart stopped beating at xx time of > > > the yy etc.​) In flurry of rhet > > > ​h​ > > > orics the statements shows either something about what the speaker th > > > ​ought of ​ > > > the king, or what hearer is supposed to "grasp" etc. it does not say > > > anything because the limits of what is said/effable are within the same > > > limit of the logical sace, minus contradictions and the negation of > > > contradictions. > > > ​ought ​ > > > > > > > The twist that LW introduced is to add that something like "317 is > > > prime" is equally not 'saying anything', for the somewhat more > > > sophisticated reason that the quoted claim is tautological, if you > believe > > > his theory of numbers, & being tautological it fails to 'exclude' any > > state > > > of affairs actual or possible. > > > it "shows" that 317 is prime, it cannot say it for the reason above. > > > how far one wishes to push such discussion is completely up to the > dogma > > > that what Wittgenstein said is Talmudically understood, hence it is > 'true' > > > in some sense or other, the rest is interpretation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Omar Kusturica > > <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > > > > I don't see what there is about the say-distinction that cannot be said > > > but only shown. "Statements say and pictures show" is a statement, not a > > > picture. It is not something unsayable in our language either, instead it > > > is a platitude. Now, is true that pictures can also 'say' in a way, and > > > statements can also 'show', in a way. But I cannot see statements that > > > 'show but do not say', any more than I can understand pictures that 'say > > > but do not show.' I conclude that Wittgenstein had a few too much to > drink > > > when he wrote that, and Donal had a few much too much when he paraphras29 > > > rue d'Ulm > > > > > > f-75005 paris france > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > palma, e TheKwini, KZN > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > palma > > > > > > cell phone is 0762362391 > > > > > > > > > > > > *only when in Europe*: > > > inst. J. Nicod > > > 29 rue d'Ulm > > > f-75005 paris france > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html