[Wittrs] Re: Wittgenstein's meaning is use.
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:50:50 -0700
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Bruce:
>
> With regard to when use is "illegitimate" in a meaning-is-use universe, the
> answer depends upon what you are really asking. If you area asking are there
> sentences or expressions that by their very FORM can never be expressed, the
> literal answer is "no." Even gibberish is "meaning."
I think it's important to the anthropological mindset to not insist
prematurely that a language have anything written, that it come
prepackaged in the form of sentences. The GUI desktop is a good
example. Sparse on words sometimes, yet lots of linguistic activity
(more languaging).
This fixation on "propositions" and language consisting of same, is
more anchored in the Tractatus era, pre-television. No one thinks of
language without thinking about television any more, surely!
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
Other related posts:
