The circumstances in which the sentence is used and makes sense is not one in which one points to an object in front of him while saying it. It is not a matter of adding context to the example in order to make sense of it. It is rather, that there may be circumstances in which one says "this is here" and it makes sense but saying it while pointing to something in front of him is not one of those circumstances. — Fooloso4
What is the sentence: "This is here" supposed to be doing? It cannot be used to inform us that the object is here. — Fooloso4
Form-of-life > language-game > use > meaning. — StreetlightX
I don't think this is right. Wittgenstein gives the example, which includes the pointing, and says that in the "special circumstances" in which the sentence is actually used: "There it does make sense." — Luke
Just as the words "I am here" have a meaning only in certain contexts, and not [in this context, e.g.] when I say them to someone who is sitting in front of me and sees me clearly ... — Luke
Hopefully I haven't made it more unclear, but I think you are mistaken to infer that Wittgenstein is saying that the meaning is not (ever) determined by the situation. — Luke
That's just it though: Wittgenstein has not provided any context/circumstances/situation for the sentence "This is here", so it needn't necessarily have the particular meaning you have attributed to it — Luke
[emphasis added].It cannot be used to inform us that the object is here. — Fooloso4
The particular circumstances in which the sentence is actually used is meant to compare with the example. It is in those circumstances that the sentence makes sense. The example illustrates the point that the meaning is not something that carries "in every kind of use". 'There', as in "There it does make sense." does not mean here, that is, in the example, but those circumstances in which the sentence is actually used. — Fooloso4
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "compare with the example" — Luke
I don't know how to square this with your previous post (↪Fooloso4) where you stated that pointing at the object should not be included, and that it was not a matter of adding context to the example in order to make sense of it. — Luke
If we are to think of circumstances in which the sentence "This is here" makes sense we do not have to include the act of pointing at an object that is in front of you. — Fooloso4
In other words, we do not have to start with the circumstances described in the example and add something in order to have it make sense. — Fooloso4
I don't understand why you want to exclude the pointing when it is part of the example described at §117. — Luke
I find no reason to question Wittgenstein's example. — Luke
Don't we need to "add" the "special circumstances" in which "this sentence is actually used", given that "there" is where "it does make sense"? — Luke
It does not make sense to point to something in front of you and say "This is here". — Fooloso4
He then asks us to consider circumstances where it would make sense to say "This is here". He is not asking us to consider circumstances in which one points while saying it. — Fooloso4
If, for example, someone says that the sentence “This is here” (saying which he points to an object in front of him) makes sense to him, — PI 117
I don't think so. It is not a matter of adding circumstances to the example but of replacing the example with some situation in which it does make sense to say "This is here". — Fooloso4
Hah, not you. Still, I'd say something like: a language game is conditioned by a form of life. So, in the 'context' of building something, 'slab' and 'block' mean something specific. In another context (maybe a certain board game say), the words will mean something different ('play the "slab" card'; 'play the "block" card'). A form-of-life has to do with the purpose one puts language too: are you a builder? A puzzle-game maker? In a situation of strife? A philosopher? And this in turn will condition how langauge is put to use for you: what language-game you employ. And what language-game another imagines you to be 'playing'. What action, what activity, what form-of-life are you engaged in? - this will condition the language-game in which words are used. — StreetlightX
You don't think that my example of pointing at a map and saying "This is here" makes sense? — Luke
"this" refers to a location on the map — Luke
Of course he asks us to consider pointing at the object while saying it — Luke
What does "replacing the example" mean? The example is just someone saying "This is here" while pointing to an object in front of him. You want to replace this? — Luke
You are doing what Wittgenstein suggests we do, consider circumstances where it does make sense to say "This is here". — Fooloso4
In Wittgenstein's example "this" would refer to the object, the map. — Fooloso4
The person pointing might think it makes sense to say that the object he is pointing to is here, but Wittgenstein does not. He is asking us to compare this case with others in which one actually says this, cases in which it does make sense to say "This is here". — Fooloso4
Although someone is still pointing, he is not making a claim about the object, the map, being here. — Fooloso4
In both examples, the person points at an object. In my example, the object is a map. — Luke
"this" refers to a location on the map — Luke
You are presupposing a meaning of 'This is here' which is not part of Wittgenstein's example. You have determined in advance that 'This is here' must have the meaning of 'this object is at this location in front of me' (or similar). — Luke
You seem to assume that 'This is here' makes sense to you. — Luke
But you should ask yourself in what special circumstances this sentence is actually used. There it does make sense. — Luke
The person in Wittgenstein's example is not necessarily making a claim about the object "being here", either. — Luke
No such determination has been made about the meaning of 'This is here' at 117. — Luke
And what is it supposed to be doing? — On Certainty 352
Yes, that is what Wittgenstein says. Whatever those circumstances are in which it makes sense to say "this is here" might be, his example is not one of those cases. — Fooloso4
When he points to the object and says "This is here" I see no reason to conclude he is not talking about the object he is pointing to. — Fooloso4
My view of OC 348 is that statements get their meaning from correct context, that is, not just any context, which is why, it seems, Wittgenstein said, it "...stands in need of such determination." The correct use of the phrase "I am here" is driven by a certain kind of situation. If you hear someone say that context drives meaning, this isn't quite right, if it were, then any statement would have meaning simply because of context. Remember that incorrect uses take place within a context. The statement fails to have meaning unless it's in the proper context. The logic behind the correct use of this phrase will not work in just any situation or context. Hence, again, the need for Wittgenstein to say that it "...stands in need of such a determination." — Sam26
His example does not contain any circumstances, so there is insufficient information to determine this. — Luke
You are assuming that "this is here" has a specific meaning — Luke
of the object "being here" or that 'this object is in front of me' or something similar. — Luke
That is, you are assuming that the meaning of 'This is here' is like "an aura the [sentence] brings along with it and retains in every kind of use." — Luke
The example illustrates the point that the meaning is not something that carries "in every kind of use". — Fooloso4
In my map example, I am also talking about the object I am pointing to, but the meaning of 'This is here' in that scenario is not 'this object is in front of me', and it need not be. — Luke
In your example you are pointing at a map but you are pointing to a location on the map — Fooloso4
My view of OC 348 is that statements get their meaning from correct context — Sam26
The circumstance is him pointing to the object in front of him and saying this is here. — Fooloso4
You are assuming that "this is here" has a specific meaning
— Luke
I don't know why you would assume that I have assumed any such thing. Everything I have said runs counter to the idea that it has a specific meaning. — Fooloso4
Although someone is still pointing, he is not making a claim about the object, the map, being here. — Fooloso4
The person pointing might think it makes sense to say that the object he is pointing to is here, but Wittgenstein does not. — Fooloso4
What is the sentence: "This is here" supposed to be doing? It cannot be used to inform us that the object is here. — Fooloso4
Right. And that is why I said:
In your example you are pointing at a map but you are pointing to a location on the map — Fooloso4
That's not a circumstance. Wittgenstein asks us to consider in what circumstances the sentence (and pointing) are actually used. — Luke
From what you have said:
Although someone is still pointing, he is not making a claim about the object, the map, being here.
— Fooloso4
The person pointing might think it makes sense to say that the object he is pointing to is here, but Wittgenstein does not.
— Fooloso4
What is the sentence: "This is here" supposed to be doing? It cannot be used to inform us that the object is here.
— Fooloso4 — Luke
I have not seen you suggest that it could have any other meaning. — Luke
Yes, that is the context I have provided. — Luke
Your own example replaces the one Wittgenstein rejects. Although someone is still pointing, he is not making a claim about the object, the map, being here. — Fooloso4
In your example "this is here" does not mean the map is here. — Fooloso4
I did not think this was in dispute since you said "this" refers to a location on the map. — Fooloso4
I would say it is not that statements get there meaning from correct context, but that it is only in a correct context, that is to say, particular circumstances or situations that a statements has a meaning. — Fooloso4
It is clear from this that you have a specific meaning of 'This is here' in mind (i.e. "the object...being here"). — Luke
Wittgenstein says that he is pointing to the object in front of him. While it is possible that he is pointing to something about the object, there is nothing in the example that indicates that this is the case. — Fooloso4
Furthermore, you have criticised my example because it fails to have the meaning you have presupposed. — Luke
You are doing what Wittgenstein suggests we do, consider circumstances where it does make sense to say "This is here". — Fooloso4
In your example "this is here" does not mean the map is here.
— Fooloso4
That's right, because I haven't made your presupposition about the meaning of 'this is here'. — Luke
That's right, but I have provided a scenario in which I point to an object (map) and say 'This is here', precisely as per Wittgenstein's example. — Luke
Wittgenstein has not stipulated that "this" must or must not refer in a particular way to the object at which I am pointing. — Luke
That is, Wittgenstein has not stipulated the meaning of 'This is here'. — Luke
Where do you jump from numerous possibilities to "a correct context"? — Metaphysician Undercover
If someone points to an object and says "this is here" I assume he means the object he is pointing to is here, but he might be pointing to something else. He might mean a scratch on the object, for example. That does not mean I have a specific meaning in mind. — Fooloso4
it means that I assume he is pointing to the object and not something about the object. — Fooloso4
I did not criticize your example. What I said is: — Fooloso4
The reason it does not mean the map is here is because you are pointing to a location on the map not the map. — Fooloso4
If you mean as per what Wittgenstein says should be considered - circumstances where this sentence is actually used then I agree. But his example was of circumstances where it does not make sense - pointing to something in front of him and saying "this is here". — Fooloso4
Yes, it does. The specific meaning you have assumed, as you yourself have just clearly stated, is that "the object he is pointing to is here". — Luke
I’m using it with the meaning you’re familiar with.
The criticism I was referring to was this of yours: "Although someone is still pointing, he is not making a claim about the object, the map, being here." — Luke
This indicated to me that you thought that my map example had failed to provide a suitable meaning for 'This is here', because it did not comport with your assumed meaning of 'This is here'. — Luke
The pointing is the same in either case. It is the meaning of 'This is here' that is different. — Luke
I don't believe that his example at 117 contains any circumstances. — Luke
I don't think that it doesn't make sense. Instead, I think that 'This is here' in his example lacks sense or has an indeterminate meaning. — Luke
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.