--- 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/