13. Did I not, then, as I grew out of infancy, come next to boyhood, or rather
did it not come to me and succeed my infancy? My infancy did not go away (for
where would it go?). It was simply no longer present; and I was no longer an infant who could not speak, but now a chattering boy. I remember this, and I have since observed how I learned to speak. My elders did not teach me words by rote, as they taught me my letters afterward. But I myself, when I was unable to communicate all I wished to say to whomever I wished by means of whimperings and grunts and various gestures of my limbs (which I used to reinforce my demands), I myself repeated the sounds already stored in my memory by the mind which thou, O my God, hadst given me. When they called some thing by name and pointed it out while they spoke, I saw it and realized that the thing they wished to indicate was called by the name they then uttered. And what they meant was made plain by the gestures of their bodies, by a kind of natural language, common to all nations, which expresses itself through changes of countenance, glances of the eye, gestures and intonations which indicate a disposition and attitude--either to seek or to possess, to reject or to avoid. So it was that by frequently hearing words, in different phrases, I gradually identified the objects which the words stood for and, having formed my mouth to repeat these signs, I was thereby able to express my will. Thus I exchanged with those about me the verbal signs by which we express our wishes and advanced deeper into the stormy fellowship of human life, depending all the while upon the authority of my parents and the behest of my elders.
First, I'm confused by "Slab I" ("Slab <Roman numeral one>"? Or "Slab <indexical for oneself>"?) — Terrapin Station
If you're working off the PDF, I think that's an OCR error. It's just 'Slab!', with an exclamation mark in my copy of the book. — StreetlightX
My infancy did not go away (for
where would it go?). It was simply no longer present; and I was no longer an infant who could not speak, but now a chattering boy.
Re "Do you say the unshortened sentence to yourself?" Again, it depends on the person. Some people might internally translate it into something else. Some won't. — Terrapin Station
It's clear that §19 is meant to answer the question (2) in the negative (it does not consist in thinking in some form or other a different sentence form the one you utter). In place of 'thought', what is offered is 'a form of life'. Witty does not at this point comment too much on what he means by this, but as a start, §19 is meant to pick apart the equation of 'wanting this' with 'thinking'. — StreetlightX
Re (2), I'd once again say that it's just a matter of what words (what sounds/text strings) have what meanings and associations for an individual. It's a matter of how an individual thinks about it. — Terrapin Station
If one tries to understand 'slab!' in only in terms of sentences and thoughts - rather than actions and practices - one will miss how it is that 'slab!' means anything at all. — StreetlightX
Again, I ony agree with "to imagine a language means (implies rather) imagining a form of life" as I described above. I wouldn't agree with that otherwise — Terrapin Station
No one seems to have mentioned (at a glance) the point being made in the opening about apples - that is the manner in which words are understood. We do not simple follow a set of sequential points in order to understand something. We do not apprehend the “red,” “apple,” or “five” as separate concepts when they’re uttered in the manner given. To say this is what W calls a “primitive language.” — I like sushi
Action grounds meaning which is distributed throughout an entire form of life(oversimplifying which may be impossible to avoid, which may be the point). — macrosoft
But all of this seems to made possible by a deep immersion in the form of life. — macrosoft
When he says "Slab!", and he means "please bring me a slab", I think: "that fucking asshole is asking me for another fucking slab again, when he hasn't even used the last one I brought him yet. Fuck off and leave me alone boss." — Metaphysician Undercover
But why thought? — StreetlightX
it is not 'thought' at stake but actions — StreetlightX
It is only within the context of me over here, you over there, a slab further away, and perhaps a structure to be built that the sound 'slab!' attains its particular sense in that situation. — StreetlightX
This 'context' - which is largely extra-lingustic and extra-mentalistic - is what Witty refers to as 'a form of life'. — StreetlightX
if one keeps looking to translate words into other words — StreetlightX
And yet we use these words transparently. — macrosoft
We do not apprehend the “red,” “apple,” or “five” as separate concepts when they’re uttered in the manner given. — I like sushi
Wait, "the form of life" is another way of saying "life-form," right? In other words, a synonym for some species or other. What would be a "deep immersion" in a life-form?
Otherwise, I have no idea what "the form of life" is saying. — Terrapin Station
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.