Wittgenstein’s friend has had surgery. Wittgenstein asks him how he feels. “Like a dog that’s been hit by a truck”, the friend wearily groans. Wittgenstein replies angrily: “How would you know what a dog feels after being hit by a truck?"
There "is no such thing as a language" because we fail to quantify it with the analytical method? This is a bearing on analyticity as opposed to language. — JerseyFlight
There is no word or construction that cannot be converted to a new use by an ingenious or ignorant speaker.
If you meet a thief, you may suspect him, by virtue
of your office, to be no true man; and, for such
kind of men, the less you meddle or make with them,
why the more is for your honesty.
Davidson's article is an example of language undermining itself — Banno
I consider these kind of considerations to be a waste of time. — JerseyFlight
Then please, spend more time here telling of it... — Banno
First, any general framework, whether conceived as a grammar for English, or a rule for accepting grammars, or a basic grammar plus rules for modifying or extending it—any such general framework, by virtue of the features that make it general, will by itself be insufficient for interpreting particular utterances. The general framework or theory, whatever it is, may be a key ingredient in what is needed for interpretation, but it can’t be all that is needed since it fails to provide the interpretation of particular words and sentences as uttered by a particular speaker. In this respect it is like a prior theory, only worse because it is less complete.
Then your time is not entirely wasted, but makes use of your capacity to recognise a quality mind. — Banno
but it might be a few more days. — Srap Tasmaner
I shall be very happy if this book contributes to the wider diffusion of logical knowledge. The course of historical events has assembled in this country the most eminent representatives of contemporary logic, and has thus created here especially favorable conditions for the development of logical thought. These favorable conditions can, of course, be easily overbalanced by other and more powerful factors. It is obvious that the future of logic, as well as of all theoretical science, depends essentially upon normalizing the political and social relations of mankind, and thus upon a factor which is beyond the control of professional scholars. I have no illusions that the development of logical thought, in particular, will have a very essential effect upon the process of the normalization of human relationships; but I do believe that the wider diffusion of the knowledge of logic may contribute positively to the acceleration of this process. For, on the one hand, by making the meaning of concepts precise and uniform in its own field and by stressing the necessity of such a precision and uniformization in any other domain, logic leads to the possibility of better understanding between those who have the will to do so. And, on the other hand, by perfecting and sharpening the tools of thought, it makes men more critical--and thus makes less likely their being misled by all the pseudo-reasonings to which they are in various parts of the world incessantly exposed today.
I have no illusions that the development of logical thought, in particular, will have a very essential effect upon the process of the normalization of human relationships; but I do believe that the wider diffusion of the knowledge of logic may contribute positively to the acceleration of this process. For, on the one hand, by making the meaning of concepts precise and uniform in its own field and by stressing the necessity of such a precision and uniformization in any other domain, logic leads to the possibility of better understanding between those who have the will to do so.
Now will you please stop cluttering the forum with this drivel about what "true thinkers" should or shouldn't do. — Srap Tasmaner
However, this is not the thread to hash it out on — JerseyFlight
No one on this forum wants a lecture from you about how they should be spending their time instead; no one wants you to intrude in their thread to tell them you think it's pointless. Please stop doing that. — Srap Tasmaner
Davidson's article is an example of language undermining itself — Banno
While your intent was to keep the ants away, you may have inadvertently lain down a sugar trail... — Banno
Reading the paper, does in fact, entitle me to comment on it, which I did. It's nonsense: "there is no such thing as a language." — JerseyFlight
To say there is no such thing as a language is not the same as to say there is no such thing as language. — Janus
Try exercising some nuanced thinking. Or would that be too "abstract" and/or "idealist" for you? To say there is no such thing as a language is not the same as to say there is no such thing as language. To make the latter claim would indeed be absurd.
And stop accusing others of invoking authority, when that is virtually all you do. I have yet to see a cogent argument from you anywhere on this forum; all you seem to offer are bare assertions. — Janus
the ability to communicate by speech consists in the ability to make oneself understood,
For we have discovered no learnable com- mon core of consistent behaviour, no shared grammar or rules, no portable interpreting machine set to grind out the meaning of an arbitrary utterance.
that it is derived by wit, luck, and wisdom from a private vocabulary and grammar, knowledge of the ways people get their point across, and rules of thumb for figuring out what deviations from the dictionary are most likely. There is no more chance of regularizing, or teaching, this process than there is of regularizing or teaching the process of creating new theories to cope with new data in any field—for that is what this process involves.
This is a bearing on analyticity as opposed to language. — JerseyFlight
Wonderful stuff. A language isn't algorithmic; it does not conform; there are no fixed rules. The rules of any language game are subject to change, on the whim of the participants. Linguistics can never be complete - and in a way not too dissimilar to that described by Gödel for Mathematics. — Banno
The argument seems at first blush to be that malapropisms cannot, by their very nature, be subsumed and accounted for by such conventions of language. Is that the whole of Davidson's argument, and is it cogent? — Banno
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.