Life\’s Direction

4th Reading and Response

Posted in Uncategorized by lifesdirection on October 2, 2008

Comments on Wittgenstein Philosophical Investigations (40-)

40.  It is nonsensical to present an argument that is redundant, we not tha the bearer of a name does is not limited to the existance of the subject.  This might be true of the definition is N, however definitions when used as names are not dependant upon physical space but upon logical space (not Philosophical Formal Logic).

42.  Why has Wittgenstein reduced body language to a joke, it is as much if not MORE of a language then written word.  It comprises 70% of communication and is universal.  Wittgenstien has missed the mark.  He really should be focusing on Languages that are more pervasive.  Perhaps them he could bring into account for the Logical Structure of the offensive gesture one of his students made to him.

44.  Excalibur was broken in peices only makes sense under the premise that Excalibur is the name for an object, not a proper noun, you cannot break a person or place into peices.

45. Wrong, this is an error in Grammar One can say “This proves it”.  There is no bearer of “this” because it is out of context,  The usage of this is not limited to a name.

47.  The rejection of this question is far simpler than outlined,  the more immediate issue is that judging an object to be composite is far to contingent on a number of things: education, intelligence, opinion, proper functionning of the senses…

65.  Hallelulijah Vindication!

67. The problem lies in the solution of Wittgensteins ‘playing with words’ while words might describe properties the dont describe circumstance or ‘state of affairs’  In order not to play games with words we would have to have a word for every state of affairs possible.  Absurd!

69.  Game – Equipment that aides and/or Structured behavior for the sake of entertainment.

70.  The same could be said for the common expression “Tell me something”  The problem with both of these examples is a matter of expectations management and not the use of language.  If someone wanted a ‘sort of game’ not that kind… then it is up to the requestor to qualify his request.

241. Surely Wittgenstieng is not claiming that there is no absolute knowledge?  Find two people that will agree on something and all of a sudden that dictates its truth value?  Sureley not!

257. Oh come on!  Tell me is an academic really going to beg the question of accessibility of language!  Surely he puts his education at stake by questioning its use!  Can a word exist it if is unknown to someone, surely a child can name his pain and he does understand the word.  Using the word does not constitute knowing the pain or accuratly descrivbing the pain but one cannot question vocabulary as it is understood.  Consider the word “post-modern”  find a layperson that does not understand this word.  It is very easy! yet academics use it all the time in he post-modern era!   Do you understand the vocabulary that is limited to your vocation?  Certainly you do!

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: