Re: [Wittrs] Wittgenstein, thought and words
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Wittgenstein's Aftermath <wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:22:51 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kirby urner <wittrs@...> wrote:
> responding to message 7385
> KU:
> We don't need a dog to be "thinking in words" that it intends to
> go outside. The dog is at the door, tail wagging, the very essence
> (if there were such) of "expectant behavior". The dog expects the
> door to open and we say the dog intends to exit by that door. Reading
> the situation, the meaning is obvious. The dog intends to go out.
I have never been convinced that thinking is something done in words.
It has always seemed to me that thinking is done on ideas, and the
words sometimes come along for a free ride.
Of course, if I am doing strictly formal logic, then I need to do that
in terms of the words. But I rarely need to do strictly formal logic.
When I am thinking about geometry, I am often thinking about motions.
While there are words coming along for a free ride, you would not be
able to make much sense of them. They would statements such as "if I
do this to that" which only have meaning in the context of my thoughts.
Regards,
Neil
_______________________________________________
Wittrs mailing list
Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
Other related posts:
