Yes, that's why I'm suggesting that scepticism/certainty is not the only issue in play in this text. BTW, I'm a bit puzzled by "all states of affairs" are objects. — Ludwig V

I agree but he is taking his time drawing out this side here first. And my recollection of TLP is shoddy but I was trying to draw the parallel of his, as you say Atomism there, and the “queer”-ness of the mechanism here.

In short, there is a lot going on, and it is not evident to me that mental images don't play an important role. Also, what "mental images" specifically covers can be subtle. — Manuel

Well, yes, there can be a lot going on, but most of the time we get along fine, which is only to say that the odd example is not evidence of the need to retreat to always having some thing certain in your brain that controls our relation to the world. By “mental image” he just means picturing something in your head, but a lot gets added onto it when we want that to be an object, of certainty, of knowledge, that a “queer mechanism” “associates”—in terms of necessarily equates—it to the world; that there is a mechanism in us that accomplishes that.

It seems like a natural(ish) way of thinking about this, assuming necessity, because in ordinary talk, why would it seem different? — Manuel

Well I think wanting necessity is different than just going along with what you’re accustomed to (the “ordinary”) without reflecting. But yes the most necessary relation for anyone is the objects they see (or their own “existence”—or, sense as an object—which we call a “subject”).

But once you think about this a bit more carefully, I think you discover, that no necessity is involved. — Manuel

Yes, Descartes thought his way through to radical skepticism, but what we are dealing with here is the first part, which is wanting certainty (thinking of the whole world as objects we should be able to “see”, or know, as we do trees, etc.), which is the desire that starts the spinning.

But isn't there more to all this than radical certainty? …towards contextualism… toward our everyday rule-governed behavior. — Ludwig V

Yes, but the position he is sketching out is like the counter-voice of the interlocutor in the PI. It is also his own experience from the Tractatus (claiming all “state of affairs” are objects Tract 4.2211). There is, of course, the other side of the coin, but he is sketching out the negative case of sense data to cast it in relief.

There seems to be a lack of necessity between our using words like "red", "book" and so on, and assuming there has to be something in the world which is "captured" by these words. But we seem to act as if this does happen; that a "book" is necessarily means that thing made of think wooden pulp with letter in it. — Manuel

What makes it hard to parse I think is that he starts at the end first. What we are faced with is that “usually” we just pick flowers, but sometimes we are trying to point out a banjo and our friend takes us to be distinguishing stringed instruments. And in order to avoid that happening again, we catastrophize the situation (always, all cases the same). When we picked the wrong flower, you even skipped to:

if I lacked [the mental image], I'm not sure I'd get a "red" flower, rather than some other flower (yellow, blue, etc.). — Manuel

Instead of just saying ‘whoops’ and correcting our mistakes, we try to account for the error in our explanation to control the outcome (and also make sure somehow we don’t make mistakes ever again.)

As I read what he is saying, it's that we likely make a mistake when we take a word to necessarily refer or signify necessarily to an object of some kind. — Manuel

I think your instinct is right. I take it that the desire for wanting necessity causes us to reach for an explanation that has certainty, like: in the case of ‘seeing an object’. What I think we miss is that: in order to have an answer that is necessary, certain, we have to create a particular kind of answer. If we take identifying a rock as the pattern for ‘understanding a person’, the explanation becomes “queer” to see them as an object (or to see understanding as a mechanism).

What's unclear to me is why this would be particularly "queer", to think or use some mental process of some kind. I say this because it's just as queer to think that we need mental content as to say that we don't need it, or that we can see the world without eyes, and rely on echolocation instead. — Manuel

It is not that vision or memory or attention, etc. (processes of the brain) are “queer”. It could be “queer” mechanisms that are not mental: quantification of education, politics turned into “process”, etc. The “queer”-ness is that the nature of the issue has gotten twisted (to have necessity), so the kind of solution (like an object) creates a strange magic that must happen. Imagine “understanding” not as an agreement that allows us to carry on (with someone), but as an epiphany that happens inside your brain when you “know” what they know (the “object” of their understanding), then explaining that seems “queer” (as some modern neuroscience tries to).

I hear ya. I just needed to properly read it at some point, thought this would help. We’ll have to come up with a good (short) one again though some time.

@Banno @Sam26 @Paine @Ludwig V @Jamal @Manuel @Astrophel @Joshs @Kurt Keefner @Shawn

Section 1B pp. 3-5: a “queer” mechanism of the mind

At the bottom of page 3, Witt sketches a picture from what it “seems” like “we ought really to be interested in.” I take this to be the “temptation” for an object-like framework; here, “certain definite mental” processes (perhaps in order to give us something fixed in ourselves). He says we want these mechanisms to associate a word with the world, though he intimates there is something wrong (“queer”, “don’t quite understand”, ”occult”(p.4)) that allows the space for error (to “agree or disagree with reality”), which opens the world to doubt.

Another moment on method as he again discusses transferring an internal mechanism to an analogous external process. This makes the process public, all out in the open, but also not personal, not individual, taking out me (which is also a theme), which feels like a loss I don’t know how to record yet. I take it he is playing off the picture of thought as an “object” and a mechanism that has “properties different from” signs, that makes signs come alive (or be ‘present’ as Derrida might critique it? @Joshs), when he contrasts that to “use”. Here I believe we should not jump to assuming we know what this term means yet, but let it take shape based on the role it plays going forward.

But he says, pulled externally it “ceases to seem to impart any life”, which I take it as less than ‘ceases to live’ but that it does no longer “seem to impart” perhaps the “queer” “association” that “you needed for your purposes”. (P.5) I take this purpose to be the desire for an internal mechanism (as object), and so perhaps the death is of the idea of the self as controlling that mechanism, creating meaning. The looked-for object “co-existing” with the sign was then a special vision of us.

He then flat out claims that what gives life to a sign is not us, but a system of signs. And not just that, but its “part” in that system, its “belong[ing]” in it, which shows the “significance” or meaning. I will also point out that time becomes a factor here—that instead of a mechanism occurring at the same time as the sign, “co-existing” with it, there is a system already, pre-existing.

Is this a factual claim? — Manuel

Yes, with “this” being: “there actually is a way to how identifying and naming objects works”, though it does not create a “factual” (unassailable) relationship between word and object (good enough though “usually” as Witt says). What I am trying to point out is that here there is a direct reference (or best case), which is what we desire elsewhere, so we transpose the model.

different aspects of a pencil are being examined or looked at. — Manuel

It is not our “looking” at, nor examining the aspects of, the pencil; different things are important (have greater significance) to us in the different situations. What criteria are used for judgment depends on what matters to us (and the possibilities of the situation; yes, including, the pencil).

I am not seeing the difference in terms of mental or physical terms. If the framework is presented as ostensive vs non-ostensive, then that makes sense. — Manuel

Yes, the point is that there is no difference; the physical patch serves the same purpose as the mental image; it is our process of checking the object against a standard that matters. The ultimate point being that we want the standard to be an object: ever-present, backing up every interaction, not just picking flowers.

My question is, who is the one who is looking for this "objectivity"? Philosophers? Ordinary people? — Manuel

Here I think Witt means those who are tempted by a desire for something sure. Definitely traditional philosophy, but I would argue our larger modern culture. But I would point out that there actually is a way to how identifying and naming objects works, and that is word—thing (flower; though yes the word is not the flower), but that is exactly why we want it to work that way in every case. It is so certain and clear and simple and predictable; the evidence of our senses is so immediate and convincing to us that the idea of seeing something with our eyes is our best-case scenario in the face of doubt about our world (as is ‘pain’ about our feelings).

If you have a different interpretation of what is ostensibly the same thing, say, these words you are reading right now, or maybe the crying tree outside my window, how is this not a different perception? — Manuel

The interpretation is possible because of the criteria and circumstances, not how we see the world (in each of the above pencil cases, they are NOT “ostensibly the same thing”, though the words are). Though, of course, if the circumstances are looser, you still play some part: in identifying a banjo or grouping it as a general string instrument (p.2 (though not in interpreting what identifying is, or how it goes wrong). I can miss the point, can be mistaken, disagree (matters of… responsibility?). But when I say, “THIS is a pencil” after you show me your new mechanical pencil, and as I bring out what I take to be the ultimate pencil, you may take this as condescending or true, but how are the underlying facts and how this situation does what it does here dependent on us?

‘it is not at all essential that the image we use should be a mental one.’ P.3

Not essential, the image? …if I lacked it, I'm not sure I'd get a "red" flower, rather than some other flower (yellow, blue, etc.). — Manuel

What he is saying is that the image could be mental or physical, like a patch of the color. That the physical patch of color serves the same purpose as the “mental” image of color (that it is mental is inessential). Also, it is this wanting to be “sure” at all times that you express which Witt is saying creates the need for the object (fears its “lack”). But, as he demonstrates, let’s create a scenario where you have to be sure. Then you would absolutely carry a patch and match the colors of red to each other. Or, if there was a field of different flowers and we definitely wanted red, we would take care not to have a mistake happen (as I describe below). But unless we have some special circumstance, usually, I would neither need the image nor the patch. As you say, we are accustomed to it.

If I get a red flower without explicitly thinking about the red, then in all likelihood I did it unconsciously, because I am accustomed to getting red flowers all the time. — Manuel

He will address “unconscious thinking” later, but doing it “unconsciously” is different than doing it because you are “accustomed”. You could do it without thinking of the consequences (“thoughtlessly”), inadvertently, or by mistake, but the opposite of “explicitly thinking” is not “unconscious”, but, perhaps, unaware.

I can't see removing all mental content being useful here at all, IF that's even what the issue may be. — Manuel

He is not “removing” mental content; he is beginning to show that we unnecessarily picture it in the framework of an object (as a thing we can be as sure of as seeing a flower), while pointing out there is a larger, pre-existing world out there than us, and also picking at the feeling that we must have it or we “lack” something, which he says later turns into something we feel we “cannot” do.

@Banno @Sam26 @Paine @Ludwig V @Jamal @Manuel @Astrophel @Joshs @Kurt Keefner @Shawn

Section 1 pp. 1-3 Mental objects & Use (cut the first section a little short; and not waiting until after U.S. election).

Wittgenstein starts with claiming that we are incorrectly structuring ‘sense data’ (feelings, visions, thoughts) after an object, as when he says “a substantive makes us look for a thing that corresponds to it.” (p.1, emphasis added) (“A substantive” is defined as something that has importance to us, is meaningful.) He refers to this desire for correspondence as a “temptation”—which will be a theme—as if we are compelled to turn something that matters, into ‘matter’, compared to insubstantial ‘mind’ or ‘idea’, to avoid it being unstable and ensure its importance to us. (He will draw the skeptical picture of mind and its mechanisms—which have something “queer” about them—at the end of page 3.)

One other point is his discussion of method, which a lot of this book introduces and explains. He says we can be “cured” of the temptation (to need objectivity) by “studying the grammar [ workings ] of the [ an ]expression”. As if, when we saw each things’ different rationality, we would let go of the desire to impose the framework (and standard) of an object.

Now a “verbal” definition sets the terms of our words (“attributing” and “predicating” it, he says (p.2)—where the idea that we ‘agree’ to language comes from), which is why he prefers an “ostensive” definition, which is a demonstration by pointing out examples. (I leave the questions he asks to others; we can’t all be interested in the same things—thus why we may have multiple, non-conflicting readings.)

It would seem he is doing the exact opposite when he says it is the job of the O.D. “to give it a meaning”, but he means giving an expression a context of different relevances (fleshing out the “this-ness” as it were, I will take it, in contrast). “This is a pencil” can be taken, or seen, or said, as: its being “round” in that it is not shaped like a carpenter’s marker; or “wood” in that it is not just charcoal; or “one” in that it is “a pencil” (not two pencils), or “hard” (which ?? maybe you can find the circumstance that fits). A “ostensive definition” here is what in the PI he calls a “description” (PI #496, #665).

These are different possible ‘senses’ of the expression “This is a pencil”; he will also call these the ‘uses’—which is not meant to point out that we ‘use’ words—they reflect our interests, the reason to say it (then), and its possibilities, etc. (what he calls “criterion”) along with the circumstances, and practices, say, of picking out things, like instruments. He calls them here “interpretations”, not meant as ‘perceived’ differently, but taken to apply to a different context, under the associated kinds of facts that matter (to the related criterion) in that circumstance.

The already-established associations (criteria, practices) are the reason why we do not usually make a separate decision (unless and until we do; his example: “interpreting before obeying” (p.3)). The example of getting the red flower is evidence that with “the usual way” we don’t have any reason to deviate from or reflect on our life-long patterns (like searching, and matching colors), as we do in politics, and philosophy.

Where would one place the notion of a "concept" with the above about "sense-data" in mind? — Shawn

Well that’s a pretty fuzzy word**, but if we are dealing with “feeling, hearing, seeing”, and so tangential to ‘meaning’, ‘understanding’, ‘thinking’, where ‘thought’ is considered like an object as well, then there is a traditional interpretation of ‘concept’ as an ‘idea’, then an ‘idea’ is in the same placeholder as ‘appearance’ or ‘representation’.

Witt uses the word ‘concept’ but it is an individually-defined term for him, which is just a grouping of activities and practices, like: pointing, or following a rule, or identifying pain, etc. So he will talk about the concept of playing a game, but he does not mean: the ‘idea’ of playing, but the criteria and steps etc. that fall under the umbrella of that activity.

**Idea could also be an image for, or speaking to, yourself.

@Banno @Sam26 @Paine @Ludwig V @Jamal @Manuel @Astrophel @Joshs @Kurt Keefner

Since sense data (what Witt takes as “feeling, hearing, seeing” p.1) is not a simple philosophy-101 idea, I feel I should offer a brief overview (outside the text, so without defense, to be taken or left).

The idea and framework come from something very old and fundamental in philosophy: skepticism.

For Descartes it came from doubt; in response he divided everything into reality and ‘representation’. “…the things which are represented to us in sleep are like painted representations which can only have been formed as the counterparts of something real and true…” (1st Med, p.7)

Plato pictured a “shadow” (Republic ln. 515) to save the possibility of something true in comparison.

Ayer’s idea of ‘perception’ is that the world always appears different (we read Austin's response here).

and Kant internalized into each of us the paranoia that ‘appearances’ “to every different eye, in respect of its colour, …may appear different.” (Crit. Of Pure Reason §§4).

‘Sense data’ is an amalgamation of all these constructions.

As mentioned, I am going to put together a reading of the first section that I will post after Nov 5.

It would seem as though the world could not be understood as philosophers would have wanted it to. If so, then where does one go from here? — Shawn

If we are to cure the urge for perfection—in this instance, as we will have to in other instances—then maybe we have to turn away from it, figuratively, say, from Plato’s sun, and take his shadows seriously, take his interlocutors as speaking truly. Emerson says if the world is surfaces (appearances), we should skate them well. Wittgenstein looks at our expressions to learn about the workings of each thing, because, he says, that shows what is essential about that practice/thing (PI, #371). This is not mathematical certainty, crystalline purity, nor universal, predictive, foundational, normative, etc., but it is precise, specific, rational, workable, flexible, extendable, capable of encapsulating error.

What I meant by “internal” logic was that each practice has a true/false kind of rationality that is based on its own criteria, and so not judged by a standard from outside it, but that its logic is self-referential, or “internal”. An apology has certain criteria by which we judge if it was done correctly (truly) or not (was false, as an apology). This is in the league of identity, as we judge a dog from a wolf, with there being a grey area in between, even as an apology can be incomplete, yet accepted (the ultimate means of judgment).

I don't think he thought of the Tractatus as entirely a mistaken work; but, certain elements of it, such as the picture theory of meaning, were not adequate to answer the questions that occupied Wittgensteins mind. — Shawn

I would not call the work in the Tractatus a waste. Of course we could call the picture theory a “mistake”, but I’m thinking more of the mistaken desire for purity that that theory, or any theory, would try to satisfy. If we call that a desire for pure (singular, universal) logic, then he does abandon that goal in the PI, however, the varied grammar he sees in each concept has its own internal logic, though not foundational, so he does continue a rigorous, precise, intelligibility in the PI.

Yes, although it would seem as though that the mechanics of what concepts are, are to this day a point in question. As I already stated, grammar seems to be the path to greater understanding rather than route logic which had been trying to solve as Wittgenstein sought out. — Shawn

You’d have to explain why there is a question of the mechanics of concepts, though I would say the criteria of how to judge, say, a correct apology, or distinguish between a mistake and an accident, are part of the fabric of our history and lives together. And I don’t think we can say that there isn’t a logic to those criteria, though not formal logic (I don’t know what would make it “route” logic). The point of the PI is that we don’t need pure formal logic to have a workable rational world.

Yet, I feel as though it was a work guided by sheer intelligence, to state what was said. — Shawn

He definitely pushed the experiment of the Tractatus—basically to only state what can be said with absolutely certainty—as far as he could, which demonstrated his intellect but also persistence to carry a line of thought all the way through, past where everyone else might rest on a first impression. Only such a thorough “mistake” (if we would even call it that) could lead to such a monumental revolution as the Investigations.

So, how can a concept stand for a word? This strikes me as pragmaticism. Is this really an implicit reference to pragmatism in the Philosophical Investigations? — Shawn

“Concept” for Wittgenstein is just a term for any practice: pointing, following a rule, noticing an aspect, seeing, understanding, apologizing, naming, knowing, etc. What he claims is that we can look at what we say and learn from that how we judge what it is. The “use” he is referring to of a word is the sense that it makes in a situation, what we would identify it as, when it is said, where, to whom (“I'm sorry” as an apology, an overture, a threat). That “I know” has multiply senses: “I know my way around” is judged differently than “I know your pain” than “I know what is best for this company”. “Use” is not how a word is wielded (as if we use words), like a tool, for its consequences, its practical outcomes. Wittgenstein is looking at the mechanics of our interest and judgment through a concept—how it is identified, distinguished, satisfied.

What do you mean by "its own criteria"? — Shawn

In comparison to the Tractatus, which, as you point out, held everything that could be said to make sense to a generalized standard for truth (based on nominalism, or reference), in the PI, each practice is true to the extent it, internally as it were, meets its own different criteria, e.g., for an apology, for acknowledging pain, for following a rule, continuing a series.

In your other post you ask “what is the difference here being made about 'phenomena' and 'concepts about phenomena'?” It is explaining his method, not a different approach to the world. He is not avoiding phenomena, but he is looking at what we say about something because that tells us how we judge it. Elsewhere he will call this the “possibilities of phenomena” (PI 90) as Kant will talk about a thing’s “conditions”.

why philosophers are in need of therapy — Shawn

We could also call it a logical error that philosophers make, and that philosophy itself (its method) is always in a state of revolution or self-criticism, but I take it that traditional philosophers create a requirement beforehand, what is sometimes called “objectivity” or “knowledge”, and then try to find a way to force the world into that mold. Wittgenstein starts with this kind of singular logical standard in the Tractatus, what he later will call purity, and then in the Investigations he realizes that each different thing has its own criteria. To call it a therapy maybe records that it takes self-reflection and growth (that PI is an argument for philosophers to act a certain way ultimately), and also because there are reasons why we want that kind of answer. As @Banno points out—Wittgenstein is interested in what motivates philosophers; why they are “inclined” to say this or that, and then learn from the contrast with what other contexts we say the same things.

You say that a part of philosophy is to change oneself. Change oneself in the sense of changing our knowledge of certain topics or maybe giving us a new perspective? — Jafar

A lot of people take philosophy as a set of problems to be answered. Originally, Socrates was asking questions to make us better people, and unfortunately he equated virtue only with a certain kind of knowledge, and ever since we have been thinking of philosophy as deciding what to think (theories and conclusions) rather than changing how we think (rigorous, empathetic, without presumption). As a bit of both, for example, in understanding Kant, you might see how the subjective-objective framework is still deeply ingrained in modern culture and how people consider judgment.

why do you advise against reading summaries? — Jafar

If the goal is to better ourselves, change how we think, then tackling the actual texts is the mechanism. A lot of the summaries are over-simplifications that will not only block you from having to work through your own thoughts first, but don’t draw out the implications, and many of them are just wrong.

How do you engage with philosophy, whether when you're reading or discussing/debating with others? — Jafar

The most important thing I realized is that when you are reading, pay attention to what jumps out for you and make notes about your thoughts to yourself, the questions you have, because, although you have to work to get past your first impressions (no real philosophy is immediately understood because the idea is to change you), what you are interested in is the starting point. That, and don’t dismiss anything because there is a part that you don’t agree with or that is wrong. And never read summaries. Good luck.

@Banno @Ludwig V

The word 'shoe', for instance, obviously gets its meaning from the fact that it refers only to things that are shoes, and not to things that aren't. — cherryorchard

The need to take a static snapshot and exclude other things is why we can picture language as violence. That our expressing something, in response to a situation, to someone, making distinctions, etc., is to cut off other possible things to express (not precluding ongoing clarification, correcting mistakes, etc). And the criteria for identification, categorization, creative application can be fuzzy and general without being flawed.

One thing Gellner is claiming OLP does not allow is that our forms of expression change, but it is because they contain the rationale of the world, the form and workings of each being different, say, as an apology is different from justice, that they have the possibility to be extended, to die off, become superficial, or are given new life. Wittgenstein specifically addresses and allows for this in discussing “continuing a series”. The claim to what criteria there are for a practice does not preclude that practice from changing, or the criteria we use to judge it. What they take philosophy to do is draw out those ordinary criteria (explicitly), which actually allows for the discussion of their applicability, our failure to apply them, the need for change, etc.

to make the criteria for what falls under a concept either so severe, or so loose, that either nothing at all can, or everything must, fall under it. The term then loses any contrast… [ Philosophers ] do it, from the essentially philosophical desire to say something wholly all-embracing, not realizing that this ambition is incompatible with saying anything at all.

If I would claim that there are terms or concepts that have no antithesis, it would be the manufactured criteria that Descartes, Plato, and Kant create and project. Plato can come to no conclusion in the Meno about virtue through knowledge, Descartes can’t prop up anything that avoids doubt, and Kant can only come up with self-referential axioms that meet the desire to be imperative. I believe Gellner is recording this as OLP’s claim that this move (requiring certainty) “loses any contrast” or is not “saying anything at all” despite recognizing they come from philosophy’s desire to have something “wholly all-embracing”, which is what Wittgenstein is trying to pinpoint why we do that and unravel it in the PI, termed “purity”.

Perhaps this puts us in the position where we can now say Gellner misconstrues Austin and Wittgenstein, thinking they are saying we MUST have an antithesis, but what they are actually doing is redirecting our attention from the all-consuming desire for certainty (“direct” perception) to examples that contrast against that metaphysical criteria with ordinary ways we judge a situation, in this case, only coincidentally, pointing to the opposite, where we say “indirect”.

@Banno @Ludwig V @Joshs

'Words function through contrast with an antithesis' seems like a perfectly valid and meaningful theory of how words function. — cherryorchard

This might be the place to unravel a common mischaracterization of Austin and Wittgenstein. What they are doing is using the method of looking at the expressions and situations surrounding “indirect” and making claims about the criteria that make it work (because our interest in it and the ways we make judgments about it are reflected in our expressions). They imagine a context for philosophy’s (contrasting metaphysical) criteria as well. These are not claimed as “theories” as Gellner takes it, they are proposed as agreed upon (PI #128), as premises. If we do not agree with (see) “I believe” as a hypothesis (PI, p. 190), there is no force to the argument (though we can specify more context, alternate examples), but then we won’t follow Wittgenstein in contrasting its metaphysical use in relation to knowledge.

Thus, pointing out how “indirect” works (in agreed-upon ways) is an example to contrast with how philosophy is trying to remove it from any context and impose criteria and judgments. Again, it is a logical argument from premises that we must all take as how the world works. It is not an argument for how the world works (that is the starting point), nor how all language must work.

Can anyone think of any word that is meaningful without a contrast? I haven't seen an example yet. — cherryorchard

Maybe it’s important to separate a logical contrast, as in an opposite, from simply making a distinction at all, like a bush from a tree (and that these criteria blur). As I said above, Austin takes the example of the philosophical framing of “voluntary or not?” and shows that it is manufactured as the opposite of voluntary is not lacking intention, but compelled (Shanghai-highed).

So meaning is based on the distinctions it has been important for humanity to make in each instance, some of which are contrasts (opposites). Some contrasts are important to us (how indirect is opposed to direct), but some philosophical contrasts are created, e.g., belief always contrasted with (defined by) knowledge, or doubt as always opposed to certainty (even in instances where we want certainty even where doubt is not a consideration).

Phhtt.

@Banno @Ludwig V - Austin readers

We all understand and accept that different creatures with visual organs perceive the world differently. Only certain wavelengths of light are perceptible to human eyes, etc. So of course there is no 'one' objectively correct way of seeing the world. — cherryorchard

The mitigation of “perception” of indirect-realism preserves the possibility of certainty, however limited. As Kant did, it kills off the world (the thing-in-itself) in order to keep our manufactured standards for “Knowledge”. The modern story is that science can know the brain (predictably, consistently), and we can rest unmistaken on that, rather than having the constant shadow of skepticism and doubt lurking on everything else we decide to do and say. We want to only accept fore-knowledge, universality, and the “crystalline purity” of (math-like) “Logic” so, if we can’t have that (certain knowledge), we take the world as unknowable at all. Wittgenstein is showing that we have numerous ways of understanding the world other than objective certainty. Austin is just burning down the (manufactured) house.

Also, what are matters of interest and focus and differentiation, are turned into the constant, unique, individualization of our brain, and so my brain makes me constantly different from yours. The picture is: I “perceive” the world differently (always) from how you perceive it, and we use language to try to overcome our ever-present division, fraught with skeptical failure from the beginning. What internalizing our separateness (our possible difference) does is save “me” (always, rather than by non-conformity). And, yes, we are separate, but by default we are intelligible, and, when that sometimes fails, the responsibility falls on us (does not destroy our ability to connect with the world).

Whoops

Austin spends quite a lot of time in 'Sense and Sensibilia' explaining that there is no point in claiming that we only ever see things indirectly, just precisely because, if that is the case, we no longer have any idea what seeing directly would even mean — cherryorchard

We read through Sense and Sensibilia here, and I believe what Austin is doing is showing how “indirectly” actually works (seeing someone in a mirror, speaking by phone, etc), to show that the opposite “directly” does not have the same power philosophy wants it to—objectivity, certainty—against which “indirectly” is then only imagined as illusion, mitigated, or something we overcome or see through, casting us out from the world. The other point is, as you say, that we don’t mention that we see “directly” unless there is a question of whether we are or could be doing so indirectly. “I saw the moon directly, not through this telescope.”

I think Gellner is taking the point Austin is making in this case, and trying to make it a position of OLP, and, even more, a position to all language, which is an ad naseum argument. Austin is merely being logical. The same is the case when Wittgenstein points out that we don’t “know” we (or you) are in pain (as a claim to knowledge), we just “are” in pain, we have it. The claim is that pain is expressed to request a response to the pain (to my having it—to me), for it to be accepted or rejected. “I’m in pain.” “I know.” “Then why aren’t you doing anything?”

Austin's argument is about what he sees as the misuse of particular words in philosophy. — cherryorchard

This is a common minimization of Austin, though understandable. He is looking at what we say in order to learn about what we do (it is a means, not “about” it). He is not defending correct usage; he is leveraging it because what is normative about words, is our lives, which are captured in them. Unfortunately, he doesn’t talk much about why someone would claim indirect realism, nor why it is important to tear it apart (and “realism”).

The larger question then, is why would anyone claim they can only see, perceive, or experience the world indirectly? Cavell points out the inference that we want to remain special in the face of our perhaps not being so, that we want to necessarily be a self (that mitigates the world). Also, as with Descartes, we want to account for being wrong by internalizing it so we can control it (and still possibly be infallible, certain) because the fear of always possibly being wrong is worse (that we may never come to moral agreement).

@cherryorchard

I believe most of this is a misunderstanding of the method of OLP, and also maybe assuming it has certain premises it needs and/or conclusions it wants.

But: there is one kind of shift of meaning which is both disastrous and characteristically philosophical, and that is to make the criteria for what falls under a concept either so severe, or so loose, that either nothing at all can, or everything must, fall under it.

If anything the above would be a fallacy that Wittgenstein is trying to point out. He refers to philosophy’s desire for “crystalline purity” which shows in its manufacturing and imposing rigid criteria for knowledge, truth, etc.—to be logical and certain—which constrains their ability to capture the world at all (not that they need an antithesis). Also, one of Austin’s moves—in order to show that philosophy gets too wrapped up in wanting something to be a particular way—is to point out that there are not the dichotomies that philosophy imagines, such as when it asks if an act is voluntarily or not, which it thinks creates a question of intention, when an opposite of voluntarily is not necessarily determined or unconscious, but forced.

@Richard B sets out further language of Gellner’s and the concern that OLP takes regular language as superior and not claiming any impact (“normativity”).

thought is not bound and enslaved by any of the language games it employs, but on the contrary that a most important kind of thinking consists of reassessing out terms, reassessing the norms built into them and reassessing the contrast associated with them.

This assumes that OLP wants philosophical thought to be done in regular language, which overlooks Wittgenstein’s extensive use of his own terms: “use”, “sense”, “grammar”, “criteria”, “ordinary”, and his pointing out how dichotomy and analogy (or forms of expression) in everyday language create expectations that allow our desire for certainty to even get a handhold at all. The confusion I think is that Wittgenstein is not using or exalting ordinary language (the moniker is disastrous for understanding the method), but looking at the expressions we say in certain situations because they reveal our ordinary criteria of judgment, which can be contrasted with manufactured “philosophical criteria”, like Plato’s for knowledge. This does not provide a better answer, but reveals why we want to abandon the world (because it fails us, is not predictive, not stable, etc).

What is conspicuous about Linguistic Philosophy is its abdication of any kind of normative role, both in its practice and in its programmatic announcements. — Richard B

When Wittgenstein claims that philosophy should only describe and not explain (#109), he is only contrasting it to science’s hypothesizing, or imagining something hidden #126. He is not trying to claim that philosophy can’t or shouldn’t say anything or argue for anything. The whole of PI is one claim after another about how our ordinary criteria work, for all of us, and he is absolutely trying to make (and “explain”) multiple points and in a way in which we might convince ourselves, changing how we act. What constrains philosophy is not the ordinary, but what always has: what turns out to be useless, what is made ridiculous, illogical, etc.

Well, if we are only discussing language/confusion generally then I apologize, but if it is specifically Wittgenstein’s famous quote in the Philosophical Investigations, then it might help to see the context:

[ Philosophical problems ] …are solved …by looking into the workings of our language, and that in such a way as to make us recognize those workings: despite an urge to misunderstand them. …Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. — PI, #109

It is not language that “bewitches” us; we already have “an urge” (for purity, certainty) which is the cause of our being charmed out of thinking clearly. Language is the “means” by which we “battle against” focusing only on a response to doubt. It is a reference to his method of looking at examples of what we say in specific situations (in a sense, what @Shawn proposes as: “the study of logic”, though more, studying the logic of our ordinary language). The reason it works is because language and the world are tied together (except when that breaks down) in a way that examining what we say, shows us (it is a record of) our interest in each thing, the criteria we use to judge it (the “workings”).

Now of course he does also point out that our forms of expression get us into problems. One is that we use analogies that make things look simple. The relationship between a noun and an object (see @Joshs above) makes us imagine a framework where all words refer to (point to) objects, and then we force the framework onto everything else that isn’t an actual object, like imagining “ideas”, “sensations”, “meanings”, or “reality” as things. Also, the desire for simplicity and certainty is the motivation of @fdrake’s observation that we, for example, want “I know” to have only one generalized sense.

I would only pointedly argue that the answer the PI is fighting against is for philosophy to abandon our regular expressions (to be more certain)—go “outside the box” as @Pierre-Normand’s authors call it—but should, rather, root out the urge to do so itself in appreciating the ways language is rational, clear, and precise enough in a multitude of ways.

once you've learnt the skill, it's too late to ask questions — Ludwig V

Yes we are born into a history of ways of doing things, but Witt’s method is exactly to make explicit the criteria for a practice (through looking at the things we say when we do it). Also, because we have a practice is why and how it can be rational to question, push back, live differently, etc.

It's the idea that you can (should) present examples and observations and leave the reader to work out their significance — Ludwig V

As well, the part people skip over is that his examples (rule-following, pointing, “seeing”, etc.) are practices that everyone can weigh in on (we each have an equal right to claims/there is no privileged position), so the proposed criteria we use, and the “grammar” of how they work, have to be accepted (by you) for it to be philosophical worth drawing conclusions from (as evidence).

I am going to start a read-though of The Blue Book soon, but the Anscombe sounds interesting.

agreement is different from agreeing with someone else where we shall go for lunch — Ludwig V

Yes, a “form of life” is not a conclusion or argued, etc (though “acquiesce” implies choice; we are indoctrinated, assimilated—Rousseau’s “consent” unconsciously.) That is not to say we don’t have forms of argument or refutation, means of judging loyalty and fairness (“you picked last time”).

I'm not sure that all moral disagreements can be resolved — Ludwig V

Well, you are right that everything may lead to naught. But the point is that that frailty is only a possible occurrence, and so should not be interpreted into a systemic problem (concluding that there is no “rationality”, intelligibility). And Witt’s idea of a moral dilemma is not like a clash of interests about a certain type of topic (say about abortion), but when everyone is at a loss as to what to do, how to go on—which is an event (and could involve any of our practices).

I would add that the wish to step outside any particular practice, however, is incoherent. Any attempt to do simply generates a new context. — Ludwig V

But the metaphysical problem is generalized and abstracted out of time, place, actors, i.e. anything we would call “a context”.

2. Are you suggesting that we could work out the common ground with a lion, but that we choose not to? Which suggests that we could if we wanted to. — Ludwig V

This should probably be under that other post, however, the point of it here is that philosophy imagines a CANNOT situation with rationality, rather than recognizing the possibility yet simply not wanting to be responsible when everything can fall apart, or not wanting to jump in without knowing for sure beforehand that I would not be judged as wrong.

So, to answer: the ones we CAN figure out their practices (where there is a possibility), are the people with the “strange” customs (at the top paragraph of that page).

Are you saying that we can understand lions, but that if a lion could speak to us, we would not be able to understand what was said? Of course, communication would not be instant, but Wittgenstein seems to be suggesting that there is some insoluble problem. I can't see why he would think so. — Ludwig V

This is very simple, but hard for people to accept or let go of (especially philosophers, and scientists), mostly I think because it is read without the surrounding text (as if it were a claim). I am saying that Witt wanted to contrast the CAN possibility that we have with the strange people, with a CANNOT situation (where it is actually impossible—not a choice). That contrast is the extent of the purpose of that sentence. He wanted something that would be an uncontroversial “very general fact of nature” (PI #143 and p. 230) that he presumes would be accepted as a fact, such as: parrots don’t talk to themselves (#344). I would say he chose poorly (though perhaps, as worse with Nietzsche, he can’t help poking people in the eye). He is not making a claim or argument nor is it necessary for any greater reason nor within any framework or analogy—nothing matters about it (other than its contrasting impossibility). If you disagree with it as a claim, that is certainly your prerogative and understandable (it is provocative in that way); that is just not what is happening here, neither in purpose nor intent. This is Witt’s arrogant style on full display, as he will even state without argument the implications he posits for, say, “believing”, as if everyone would agree.

Your example of apology is a very interesting one, that I would love to discuss separately; it is very relevant to ethics. — Ludwig V

J.L. Austin’s A Plea for Excuses is a work about ethics in that way.

does [saying disagreements happen at a time and place] mean that such failures can eventually be overcome at other times and in other contexts? If so, then limitation doesn't seem to lie in reason itself, but in people's finite use of it, their patience, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That is exactly the point. If you do not have a preset expectation that the answer MUST ensure agreement, then a failure does not mean there is a problem with the whole system, just this instance (or just because we gave up too soon).

If the lion comment is taken head on it is just stupid. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sorry, it is not that we cannot understand lions, just not talking ones; it is meant to be the statement of a fact, not a scientific claim (which I try to explain here), because it is said in contrast to when we CAN work out other cultural practices, to show that we sometimes just choose not to.

If we say that rationality is a question of our agreement in ways of life, we seem to eliminate the distinction between those agreements that we call "correct" or "incorrect" by some standard that is not set by our agreement and those agreements that are simply a matter of making a deal, so that "correct" and "incorrect" do not apply. — Ludwig V

This has been historically framed as: if a proposition is not true/false, then it is irrational (also, if not “knowledge” than belief, or, if not “objective” than “subjective”). And Witt’s point is that “rationality” is not just meeting a standard philosophy requires (sets)—like universal, generalized, a hard rule, certain, predetermined, justified, etc. (Witt will call these “metaphysical” criteria)—but that each thing has its own kind. “Forms of life” is not just something different to simply meet the same imposed requirements.

“Agreement” is here not the same either. We come to an agreement on some criteria—like how long one foot will be—but we do not agree “to” our practices (it is “agree” in the sense more of aligning, over our entire history of doing things). Still, we do judge whether, say, an apology, is correct or incorrect, but the criteria for that are different than true and false, as I can accept an apology that you do poorly (“accepting” is part of how it works differently, its “rationality” or “grammar” as Witt calls it).

Thus it seems out of place to discuss whether apologizing, in itself, is correct or incorrect, though not strange to discuss what justice is, its ideal, and yet, differently, its commitments, and, even differently, its current state, all of which we can do intelligibly, though perhaps not conclusively. The force we want of philosophy’s “rational” (justified, certain, determinative, etc.) is what Wittgenstein is claiming is the desire which makes it seem like any other way is a failure and without recourse (leading to relativism). For example:

You will understand, I suppose, that I think that agreements that are correct or incorrect are, by and large, rational agreements and the other kind are, roughly, matters of taste or convenience or pragmatics. (The difficulty of agreements about values sits awkwardly between the two.) — Ludwig V

It is exactly this framework that interprets skepticism as a theoretical “problem”, rather than the discovery that there is no fact that will ensure resolution of our moral conflicts, thus we are responsible for solving our ongoing disagreements, because we do have the means. All criteria reflect our interests in our lives (what and how we value something), it’s only metaphysical criteria that wish to step outside of any particular practice or situation.

Whoops

One way to deal with [relativism/skepticism] would be to posit nested sets of "forms of life" that people belong to. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is true in that life takes various forms. There is our species (in itself and compared to others), our history, our practices, our cultures, etc. But these are not justification, nor decisions, nor rules we “agree” to; they come out of the fact that we live and have lived in similar ways: judging in the same manner (what an apology consists of, what pointing does), interested to make the same distinctions, anticipating particular implications, etc.

We imagine chaos because we want to only accept undeniable certainty and agreement (as “knowledge”), and cast everything else as “belief” or emotion or persuasion. But Witt shows is that the world has endless ways of being “rational” (having ways to account, though different), and so we can disagree intelligibly in relation from those practices. Ultimately we may not come to resolution, but that does not lead to the categorical failure of rationality, because a dispute also only happens at a time, in a context (which also gives our differences traction).

Now we can NOT understand talking lions, as a physical impossibility, but it is not impossible for us to learn about the gestures of the Chinese, or the traditions of others (PI, p. 223), so to preclude the other is a choice, being blind to the other because of being unable to look past ourselves.

We say we want to know, but what we actually want is for knowledge to take the place we have to be responsible for ourselves, thus accountable for it, known by our words and acts. If we could know what is right, we would not have to make a claim of it in what we do. But what we want is to not been known, to not know ourselves, and thus the allure of drugs that allow me to forget all that.

There are plenty of good reasons, supported by science, to believe indirect realism over direct realism, as I discussed at length here. — Michael

And the science of the brain and its processes is important to understand, but philosophy constructed a particular framework we should be aware of, because it did so for its own purposes. As I mentioned before, philosophy does not like the fact that we are sometimes mistaken. Instead of rectifying our errors with the means and explanations in each case, philosophy problematizes our entire relation to the world as an abstracted case—creating a space between us and the world. As an example, instead of accepting that we just see, however corruptible in particular ways and cases (hallucinating, dreaming, physiological issues, etc), philosophy projects a “reality” that we only see “indirectly” (e.g., that we have to “perceive”, or that we each see differently, or that we only see the “appearance” of, or “sense datum” of, or that create “qualia” for us, etc.), which allows philosophy to control the form of error (as a problem we might solve) or that we see “directly” which is judged by a manufactured standard that philosophy desires, creates, and imposes: a kind of knowledge that is certain, universal, generalized, abstract, etc. Basically, the dichotomy is false and manufactured and the world in all its varied forms and criteria gets abstractly judged as a single form of “reality”.

But I don't understand how we got to this point. You were saying something about us wanting to help each other if we're in pain, and somehow conclude from this that indirect realism is false? Your reasoning is confusing. — Michael

Examining the ordinary criteria and mechanics of pain, of how we judge and respond to another’s pain (acknowledging or denying it), shows philosophy’s desire to instead “know”** another’s pain (partly that it wants to avoid the claim another’s pain makes on us). Philosophy would rather turn it into an intellectual problem that is either equated or not (**subject to knowledge and certainty). This, like the example of “reality”, shows philosophy’s inclination to skip over our human lives and split our relation to the world entirely as an abstract problem.

There are plenty of good reasons, supported by science, to believe indirect realism over direct realism, as I discussed at length here. — Michael

That’s pretty straightforward so maybe we discuss it in that thread.

Are you saying that they're a fiction? — Michael

Well, in the way philosophy pictures them yes. I moved the discussion here because the article above provides some history of the parallel picture that neuroscience labors under. Philosophy has never liked being wrong so the fact that we can be (and that we are responsible for that) leads it to create the conclusion that we must not have direct access to the world (or we are ensured it), that we only see the “appearance” of something, or that our individual perspective is somehow partial or lacking or individual (my “sensation” or “perception”). That way we can have a problem to solve or a kind of knowledge or rationality to find so we will know what’s right, how to settle disputes with others, and we won’t be deceived or mistaken or judged. This is more of a story than an argument, but if there is a particularly egregious dismissal we could take that as a case study.

So because we only care about aspirin when we have a headache then it follows that first person private sensations don't exist, or that if they do exist then they are the same for all people? — Michael

Yes, but it’s not an argument, it’s a shift in perspective. Philosophy wants something with certainty, universality, uniqueness, etc. apart from our fallible, limited human interactions, which the world doesn’t provide, so it creates objects and frameworks that only rely on knowledge and intellectual solutions. At times we do have personal experiences (like witnessing a train crash), which we can keep (private as hidden) to ourselves (until expressed), but our experience and feelings are not always unique. I’m stressed about money like you are. I don’t (always) have an individual experience in going to the store. The ideas of consciousness, sensation, appearance, reality, are all manufactured by philosophy, partly to feel like we are necessarily special, as I discussed above.