Re: [Wittrs] Wittgenstein, thought and words
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Wittgenstein's Aftermath <wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 23:26:10 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@...> wrote:
> 318. Suppose we think while we talk or write -- I mean, as we normally
do -- ... the thought seems NOT TO BE SEPARATE from the expression. ...
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 something else, or can go on by itself [§330].
> AND
> The intention with which one acts does not â??accompanyâ??
the action any more than the thought â??accompaniesâ?? speech.
Thought and intention are neither â??articulatedâ?? nor
â??non-articulated;â?? to be compared neither with a single
note which sounds during the acting or speaking, nor with a
tune.â??Talkingâ?? (whether out loud or silently) and
â??thinkingâ?? are not concepts of the same kind; even though
they are in closest connection[p. 217].
>
> Do any of you find this contradictory?
Apparently you do, that why you ask, I assume. But where does the
contradiction lie.?
In the first paragraph he points out during thoughtful speaking, the
thoughts are inseparable from the speech. But other forms of expression
can be thoughtful, drawing, dance, let's say, but in each case "thought"
is an embedded accompaniment.
In the second paragraph he wants to point out that thought doesn't
accompany speech (or action) as a separate process.
Do I have right?
bruce
_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Other related posts:
