On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > (Reply to Nasha): > > Regarding the issue of "thoughts," I think the following discussion > was helpful: > http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=348&start=0&S=ea23ad7d48ebff75fa851131c581a764 > > The thing to remember is that Wittgenstein is really against a contrived > inner/outer distinction. He doesn't want you to talk with too much inner as > much as he does not want too much outer. Nothing is hidden from you. But > this does not mean that thoughts are "words" any more than it means words > are "thoughts." Really, it means that both are sentential -- that we think > by the same process that we language. That these are the same sort of thing. > In fact, when Wittgenstein says that we could not understand anything > without "language," he does not mean to say that an infant who cannot speak > an English-language-word, but whose eyes become huge at the sight of a > bright-colored object, is not "languaging" yet. Indeed, that would be a > function of what cognitive processes are going on, and whether they are > language-like. All that Wittgenstein was every doing was trying to destroy > folk psychology (a little man in the head) without also becoming a brute > behaviorist. I'd append here that I don't think "languaging" is really distinct from other processes and indeed, if we try too hard to build a wall between languaging and not-languaging, it'll just crumble. We think thinking or language is something unique, this proves to be a superstition, not a mistake. What he means there, I think, is it's fine to think this way, just if you find yourself *believing* it, like some kind of trapped fly, then maybe study some more and get free of such notions. Kirby WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4 TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf 3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz 1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/ FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009