[Wittrs] Re: Wittgenstein's meaning is use.
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:45:20 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@...> wrote:
>What I want to say here is, "stupid is as stupid does.
Cutting to the chase, is it stupid to say that "words express meaning"
(as some have implied)? and if so (or not so) why, on what sort of
grounds?
> ... "I know I have a hand" is facile because it plays doubt-removing
grammar
> in situations where the activity of doubt cannot be meaningfully
deployed.
Can't we conceive of a situation in which we may doubt that the hand we
see, feel, is actually our own? And if we cannot, is that evidence that
the grammar is in a knot? Of course, I'm asking the same question as
above. What sort of claim are we making when we say "your grammar is
knotted" amd what sort of arguments could we then appeal to?
> Imagine someone being a poor player at cards or whatever.
But in the above cases we have explicit criteria for failure. What
"poor" or "just so so", may be vague. Still winning is explicitly
defined. What are the criteria for knotted grammar?
bruce
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:
