Lol when someone calls Witty an empricist what is one to do but throw one's hands up and laugh; "The limit of the empirical -- is concept formation" (RFM). And all of Witty is an exploration of how concepts take hold; an exploration of the limits of empiricism. It'd be like if one were to call Plato a materialist. How much more idiotically off-base can one get? — StreetlightX
I take schopenhauer1's point to be that the limits of Wittgenstein's philosophical inquiry should not mark the limits of philosophy. — Fooloso4
In other words, is all epistemology or is there ever room for accounting for an ontology? — schopenhauer1
"A is a physical object" is a piece of instruction which we give only to someone who doesn't yet understand either what "A" means, or what "physical object" means. Thus it is instruction about the use of words, and "physical object" is a logical concept. (Like colour, quantity,...) And that is why no such proposition as: "There are physical objects" can be formulated.
...,
It is quite sure that motor cars don't grow out of the earth. We feel that if someone could
believe the contrary he could believe everything that we say is untrue, and could question
everything that we hold to be sure.
But how does this one belief hang together with all the rest?
We should like to say that someone who could believe that does not accept our whole system of verification.
This system is something that a human being acquires by means of observation and instruction. I intentionally do not say "learns."
...
If my name is not L.W., how can I rely on what is meant by "true" and "false"?
If something happened (such as someone telling me something) calculated to make me
doubtful of my own name, there would certainly also be something that made the grounds of these doubts themselves seem doubtful, and I could therefore decide to retain my old belief.
...
Admittedly, if you are obeying the order "Bring me a book", you may have to check whether
the thing you see over there really is a book, but then you do at least know what people mean by a "book"; and if you don't you can look it up, - but then you must know what some other word means.
And the fact that a word means such-and-such, is used in such-and-such a way, is in turn an
empirical fact, like the fact that what you see over there is a book.
Therefore, in order for you to be able to carry out an order there must be some empirical fact about which you are not in doubt. Doubt itself rests only on what is beyond doubt.
...
"If my memory deceives me here it can deceive me everywhere."
If I don't know that, how do I know if my words mean what I believe they mean?
"If this deceives me, what does 'deceive' mean any more?"
What can I rely on?
I really want to say that a language-game is only possible if one trusts something
(I did not say "can trust something"). — On Certainty
Yes, I never stated nor believe Wittgenstein's whole project should be discounted. ... These are all jargony terms and have to be clarified in their contexts. I don't believe every jargony term is senseless. It has their uses. — schopenhauer1
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.