[Wittrs] Wittgenstein's meaning is use.
- From: CJ <castalia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:59:21 -0400
From Wittgenstein
When I think in language, there aren't 'meanings' going through my
mind in addition to the verbal expressions: the language is itself the
vehicle of thought.
Is thinking a kind of speaking? One would like to say it is what
distinguishes speech with thought from talking without thinking.---And
so it seems to be an accompaniment of speech. A process which may
accompany somehting else---or can go on by itself. But what
constitutes thought here is not some process which has to accompany
the words if they are not to be spoken without thought.
"Only someone who is CONVINCED can say that"---How does the conviction
help him when he says it?---Is it somewhere at hand by the side of the
spoken expression? What if someone were to to say "In order to to be
able to sing a tune from memory one has to hear it in one's mind and
sing from that?
"So you really wanted to say......."---We use this phrase in order to
lead someone from one form of expression to another. One is tempted to
use the following picture: what he really 'wanted to say', what he
'meant' was already PRESENT SOMEWHERE in his mind even before he gave
it expression. Various kinds of things may persuade us to give up one
expression and to adopt another in its place.
To understand this, it is useful to consider the relation in w hich
the solutions of mathematical problems stand to the context and ground
of their formulation. The concepts 'trisection of the angle with ruler
and compass' when people are trying to do it, and, on the other hand,
when it has been proved that there is no such thing. What happens
when we make an effort---say in writing a letter---to find the right
expression for out thoughts?
"Now if it were asked: "Do you have the thought before finding the
expressin?" what would one have to reply? And what, to the questin:
"What did th thought consist in, as it existed before its
expression." A French politician once wrote that ti was a peculiarity
of the French language that in it words occur in the order in which
one thinks them.
But didn't I already intend the whole construction of the sentence
[for example]at its beginning? So surely it already existed in my mind
before I said it out loud!---If it was in my mind, still it could not
normally be there in some different word order.
But here we are constructing a misleading picture of 'INTENDING', that
is, of the use of the word. An intention is embedded in its situation,
in human customs and institutions. If the technique of the game of
chess did not exist, I could not intend to play a game of chess. In so
far as I do intend the construction of the sentence in advance, that
is mad e possible by the fact that I can speak the language in
question. After all, one can only say something if one has learned to
talk.
Therefore in order to WANT to say something one must also have
mastered a language, and yet it is clear that on can want to speak
without speaking. Just as one can want to dance without dancing. And
when we think about this we grasp at the IMAGE of dancing, speaking,
etc.
Thinking is not an incorporeal process which lends life and sense to
speaking, and which it would be possible to detach from speaking,
rather as the Devil took the shadow of Schlemiehl from the ground.---
But how "not an incorporeal process"" Am I acquainted with incorporeal
processes, then , only thinking is not one of them?
No; I called the expression "an incorporeal process' to my aid in my
embarrassment when I was trying to explain the meaning of the word
"thinking" in a primitive way. One might say "Thinking is an
incorporeal process, however, if one were using this to distinguish
the grammar of the word 'think' from that of , say, the word 'eat'.
Only that makes the difference between the meanings look TOO SLIGHT.
[It is like saying: numerals actual and numbers non-actual objects]
An unsuitable type of expression is a sure means of remaining in a
state of confusion. It as it were bars the way out. One cannot guess
how a word functions. One has to LOOK AT its use and learn from that.
Other related posts:
