Well, I think the notion of an essence cannot be made clear without being wrong — Banno
One examines the language and deduces the rules. — Banno
Wittgenstein showed us how to better answer philosophical questions by forgetting about essences, definitions and meanings and instead looking at what is being done in using words. In §201 he is reinforcing this way of doing philosophy by showing the limitations of considering just the rules of a language game. One must go beyond the rules and look at what is being done. — Banno
I'm beginning to see dimly what you're driving at. — Dr. Watson
The sequence 2, 4, 8,... can be made to fit with an arbitrary number of patterns i.e. a word's usage pattern can be made to match any rule whatsoever. — Agent Smith
I suppose what I mean to inquire is whether there's any difference at all between essence (of a word) and rule (how a word is supposed to be used)? — Agent Smith
Therefore [ because two people can come to the conclusion in different ways ] there is a real issue of very distinct mental processes each leading to the same conclusion, and the observation of obeying the same rule, because each produces the correct answer, when the processes being followed are actually distinct. — Metaphysician Undercover
:zip: Wriggle finger. — Cratylus
But isn't this an observation about following a rule? and not about obeying a rule? We need not have "followed" a rule to be said to have obeyed it. "Why did you drive under the speed limit?" "I followed the rule." or "What speed limit? I'm just driving here." But is it our lack of rationality that causes the fear here? or that there remains a lack of certainty, even if "rules" are involved? — Antony Nickles
To put it colloquially, it isn't possible to give an exhaustive account of what it means to obey a given rule, because a tabular definition of the said rule can never be finished, implying that the intended meaning of a rule is publicly under-determined. — sime
F(g,x) = g(x-1) + 2 If g(x-1) is defined, else — sime
Brouwer's philosophy of Intuitionism, in which ' x1,x2,... ' is interpreted as referring to partially defined finite sequence of unstated finite length, rather than as referring to an exactly defined sequence of actually infinite length. In other words, x1,x2,... is interpreted as referring to a potentially infinite sequence whose length is unbounded a priori, but whose length is eventually finitely bounded a posteriori at some unknown future date. — sime
Despite my many attempts to grasp Wittgenstein's point, I have to confess nec caput nec pedes. — Agent Smith
Imagine there's a rule on how to use a particular word. — Agent Smith
I apply the rule (as I apprehend it). However, my rule is not the same as your rule and yet the first few instances the two of us have used that word are compatible with both our rules. That we're using two very different rules is hidden for this reason. — Agent Smith
That went over my head I' afraid. — Agent Smith
If Wittgenstein is right, no language game is right or wrong i.e. anything goes, oui? After all, essence, the key ingredient for judgments right/wrong is missing. — Agent Smith
What's the difference between share and agree? Could I share a word with someone without some agreement as to what it means with that someone? — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.