Life\’s Direction

3rd Reading and Response

Posted in 20th Cent. Phil. by lifesdirection on September 25, 2008

On Philosophical Investigations:

The Philisophical Investigations by Wittgenstein seem to be a far more accessible peice than the former tractatus, the difference in my opinion is comparable to the difference between night and day.  In this writing Wittgentstein seems to take alot more carefull steps in explaining what he means and in explaining the context of his statements.

As per my previous readings and response I will number the point which I am referring to:

1.  Objects reffered to as a sound?  Perhaps interchangable with a word but, the verbal language of communication and the audible language of communication have different implications and they are both “sound” based.

What object does body language represent if sounds represent objects?

Grammar fills in the “assumptions” that Wittgenstieng is talking about

4.  The ‘script’ is to vague and undefined of a term to be using, Wittgenstein has not defined what kind of script he is referring to, colloquially a script dictates the actions and words of actors in a play or is used to run commands on a computer in sequence.

5.  Children learn vocabulary first, usually nouns as they are simple and can be represented by objects that are tangible, they then learn the intangible words which are not and cannot be represented by objects but instead actions, so we can see that not all words represent objects as claimed in point 1.  Intangible words are verbs, adjectives, pronouns an adverbs while these communicate they do not represent objects necessarily and must be learned in context.

7.  What is mean by the reference (2)

8.  “shews the assistant”  there is no word in english “shew” I think they mean “show” but this error occurs many many times in the book and is unnacceptable for a text book because of the frequency of the error.

9.  Wittgentstieng seems to avoid the concept of “context”

17  We have different kinds of word. (should it not be words)?

18.   I disagree, I think that it is the “contents” of a language that allow us to imagine a form of life as language in its broad definition and as Wittgenstein has used it previously is content agnostic,  A language is the idea of communicating and the qualifier for that idea in terms of its classification is its contents.  for example body-language, verbal-language etc…

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: