I think we first need to be clear on what an essence is. We can start by tracing the philosophical idea of essence through history. Then a good strategy would be to start an inquiry why Wittgenstein rejected the idea of essences.words lack essences — TheMadFool
I think we first need to be clear on what an essence is. We can start by tracing the philosophical idea of essence through history. Then a good strategy would be to start an inquiry why Wittgenstein rejected the idea of essences. — Wheatley
true nature of a thing whatever that thing is. — TheMadFool
essence of water — TheMadFool
:chin:is that which makes water water. — TheMadFool
Is it true that there is nothing that makes words words?words lack essences — TheMadFool
I think what you are describing here is called a rigid designater, not an essence.there's an, what I like to describe as, arbitrariness to words. There is no logical reason, no rationale, why "water" should refer to H2OH2O. — TheMadFool
Is it true that there is nothing that makes words words? — Wheatley
true nature of a thing whatever that thing is.
— TheMadFool
essence of water
— TheMadFool
is that which makes water water.
— TheMadFool — Wheatley
I think what you are describing here is called a rigid designater. — Wheatley
That's just an assertion.Words are signs, they stand for things. What they stand for is up to us, whatever we fancy that is. That's Wittgenstein. — TheMadFool
I never suggested otherwise.The essence of a thing is not the same as the essence of a word used to refer to that thing. — TheMadFool
But you do mention words in your OP.I don't think so. I'm attempting to go beyond the words, to the things themselves the word stands for. — TheMadFool
Words are signs, they stand for things. What they stand for is up to us, whatever we fancy that is. That's Wittgenstein.
— TheMadFool
That's just an assertion. — Wheatley
The essence of a thing is not the same as the essence of a word used to refer to that thing.
— TheMadFool
I never suggested otherwise. — Wheatley
I don't think so. I'm attempting to go beyond the words, to the things themselves the word stands for.
— TheMadFool
But you do mention words in your OP. — Wheatley
Well, you can quote Wittgenstein to support your argument.Do I have a choice? — TheMadFool
Okay, it's not a rigid designator. My mistake.I don't think so. I'm attempting to go beyond the words, to the things themselves the word stands for.
— TheMadFool
But you do mention words in your OP.
— Wheatley
And...? — TheMadFool
Meaning is not use. You have to be a bit more precise. — Sam26
And, why would you wonder if we could do philosophy without language. Of course we couldn't. It would be like asking if trains could pull themselves without the locomotive. — Sam26
Meaning is not use. You have to be a bit more precise.
— Sam26
The notion itself lacks exactitude. You can't fix a blurry image by getting corrective glasses.
And, why would you wonder if we could do philosophy without language. Of course we couldn't. It would be like asking if trains could pull themselves without the locomotive.
— Sam26
IF you're right, all hope is lost. — TheMadFool
I said you have to be a bit more precise, not exact. In language, sometimes a blurry image is just what we need. — Sam26
However, in this case, if you're correct that meaning equates to use, then any use of a word in any context would necessitate its meaning, and this isn't true. — Sam26
Language is the main tool of philosophy, it's where philosophy lives and breathes. Why would you suppose that all hope is lost if this is the case? — Sam26
I agree, language can be friend or foe depending on your understanding of how language works. I don't think that language is used to give us mental pictures to allow us to understand reality. I'm not saying we don't get mental pictures, but this isn't something we should rely on to understand reality. Who's mental picture is correct? In many ways it's correct to say that propositions picture reality, or mirror reality, but this isn't the same as a mental picture — Sam26
You're close to falling into the hole of words equating to mental objects. — Sam26
I'm not going to argue about this issue. It's been argued about a millions times in this forum. — Sam26
Nothing personal, I just don't want to keep repeating myself. — Sam26
I haven't really familiarized myself with Wittgenstein in detail but from what I've gathered, I basically agree with everything he says about language. — Hermeticus
That's interesting, because from what I've gathered, there's a great deal of disagreement about what he means, among those who have really familiarised themselves with what he said. — Daemon
There's an, what I like to describe as, arbitrariness to words. — TheMadFool
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet
There's a bit more to Wittgenstein than recognizing the arbitrariness of the sign. — Srap Tasmaner
Now, I always say context is important. Wittgenstein believed so too. — Hermeticus
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.