“Ouch” isn’t the name of anything; it’s what you say when you hurt yourself. — Luke
An English speaker would say "ouch", an Indonesian speaker would say "aduh", meaning that exclaiming "ouch" is not an innate behaviour but is rather learnt as part of a language. — RussellA
the word "ouch!" names a set of particular observed behaviours in the world — RussellA
Words are not all just the names of things. — Banno
I've been addressing your mistaken belief that...............the word "ouch!" names a set of particular observed behaviours in the world......................Therefore, I don't see how your response about learning language is relevant. — Luke
If not naming the pain behaviour directly and the private sensation indirectly, then what purpose does the word "ouch!" have in the language game? — RussellA
Saying "ouch!" is not an involuntary act such as wincing, but rather a cognitive act as part of a language game requiring conscious thought intended to communicate a private sensation to others. — RussellA
Words are not all just the names of things. — Banno
Which comes first, knowing the meaning of a word and then understanding the sentence it is in or learning the meaning of a word from the sentence it is in in order to understand the sentence. — RussellA
Not at all. It only means that this game is played. We enter into a community that already plays various language games – see §27, where Wittgenstein points out that naming is already participating in a language game. Subsequent sections show how much is already taken as granted in order for one to participate in the game of naming.Doesn't this mean that the nature of the language game has already been determined by an a priori choice of words that happen to be used in that language game rather than the meaning of a word is how it is used in the language game ? — RussellA
And you still haven't. However it is clear that you have not seen how to replace thinking in terms of meaning with thinking in terms of use, and are still attempting to get at meaning by looking at use while treating these as distinct things. We can proceed instead by dropping talk of meaning and instead looking only to use.I didn't properly answer your question. — RussellA
If someone were to use a given word appropriately in every case, on what grounds could you claim: "Yes, but they do not know what it means." — Banno
Show me a parrot that runs a peanut farm. Parrots do not participate in what Witti called the "form of life" in the way that farmers do. That is, there is more to the use of "peanut" than saying things - there is participating in growing, trading and selling, for a start.
Language games are not restricted only to language use. We are embedded in them in all our day-to-day activities. — Banno
Yep. That "potential" is usually thought of as "intention", and hence Anscombe's interest in that topic.That seems to suggest that there's a certain potential associated with humans — frank
:cool: And what is the purpose of this question - what is it's use? Let's look at it as Wittgenstein might, by checking the use rather than the meaning; so instead let's ask "Do the baby and the farmer use 'peanut' in the same way?".That the baby and farmer mean the same thing by "peanut"? — frank
If someone were to use a given word appropriately in every case, on what grounds could you claim: "Yes, but they do not know what it means."
— Banno
On what grounds would you say they do know what it means? — frank
So a computer or parrot always uses the word correctly without knowing what the word means. I guess that makes me wonder what the special human magic is that renders them knowing. Hmm. — frank
The interesting case might be, say, ChatGPT, which apparently uses words correctly just on the basis of a large scale statistical analysis. And yes, I am incline to say that ChatGPT does not participate in the world to the degree requisite to say that it understands the words it uses. It lacks the "magic" if you like. — Banno
Use it in a sentence. — Luke
If someone can see me, they see a picture of me wincing. If someone cannot see me, and hear me say "ouch!", they can replace the word "ouch!" by a picture of me wincing, ie, the word "ouch!" names the picture of me wincing.
The word "ouch!" names a picture, and a picture is a noun. Therefore, in the sentence "Ouch!", the word "ouch!" is being used as a noun. — RussellA
Use it in a sentence.
— Luke
If someone can see me, they see a picture of me wincing. If someone cannot see me, and hear me say "ouch!", they can replace the word "ouch!" by a picture of me wincing, ie, the word "ouch!" names the picture of me wincing.
The word "ouch!" names a picture, and a picture is a noun. Therefore, in the sentence "Ouch!", the word "ouch!" is being used as a noun. — RussellA
“Ouch” is not a name, it is an expression — Antony Nickles
However it is clear that you have not seen how to replace thinking in terms of meaning with thinking in terms of use, and are still attempting to get at meaning by looking at use while treating these as distinct things — Banno
We enter into a community that already plays various language games — Banno
I said that "Ouch!" is a sentence, not that "ouch" is a sentence. — RussellA
The word "ouch!" is an exclamation, and according to the University of Sussex, an exclamation can be a sentence. — RussellA
. But it is not a request; not because of the lack of something (magic, intention), but just that birds can’t meet the requirement of asking something of another (though the concept stretches when we look at some of their dances) because they cannot acknowledge (or ignore) the debt of it. — Antony Nickles
Ouch!" is an exclamation… an exclamation is a noun: — RussellA
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.