What is the topic of Wittgenstein’s remarks? Answer:
The topic of Wittgenstein’s remarks is about the interpretation of private language.
What branch(es) of philosophy would seem to be at issue in the passage? Answer:
Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Language
What is Wittgenstein claiming in the passage?
Wittgenstein is claiming that words and signs originating from private language cannot be defined in any meaningful manner, since the words and signs didn’t come from common language (the language that has shared meaning among the masses), thus no definitive meaning can be derived and should not be used.
Having decided on the nature of Wittgenstein’s claim, what are the grounds (reasons) for it that Wittgenstein provides? …show more content…
Having decided on the nature of Wittgenstein’s claim, what are the grounds (reasons) for it that Wittgenstein provides?
He claims that words can only describe an event or experience as long as the masses can place a similar label. Wittgenstein makes the argument on how in fairy tales objects that can talk is not nonsense since that object themselves face similar events or experiences that the masses can relate to and place a label on. Objects cannot feel pain, but a human can perceive that the object is going through the same experience as they would, reasoning that the object is feeling pain. This would only be nonsensical if human beings did not create said labels and share the same experiences. What possible objections to his claim does Wittgenstein foresee and how does he rebut …show more content…
No one can look into anyone else’s box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle.—Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing.—But suppose the word “beetle” had a use in these people’s language?—If so it would not be used as the name of a thing. The thing in the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something: for the box might even be empty.—No; one can `divide through’ by the thing in the box; it cancels out, whatever it
The topic of Wittgenstein’s remarks is about the interpretation of private language.
What branch(es) of philosophy would seem to be at issue in the passage? Answer:
Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Language
What is Wittgenstein claiming in the passage?
Wittgenstein is claiming that words and signs originating from private language cannot be defined in any meaningful manner, since the words and signs didn’t come from common language (the language that has shared meaning among the masses), thus no definitive meaning can be derived and should not be used.
Having decided on the nature of Wittgenstein’s claim, what are the grounds (reasons) for it that Wittgenstein provides? …show more content…
Having decided on the nature of Wittgenstein’s claim, what are the grounds (reasons) for it that Wittgenstein provides?
He claims that words can only describe an event or experience as long as the masses can place a similar label. Wittgenstein makes the argument on how in fairy tales objects that can talk is not nonsense since that object themselves face similar events or experiences that the masses can relate to and place a label on. Objects cannot feel pain, but a human can perceive that the object is going through the same experience as they would, reasoning that the object is feeling pain. This would only be nonsensical if human beings did not create said labels and share the same experiences. What possible objections to his claim does Wittgenstein foresee and how does he rebut …show more content…
No one can look into anyone else’s box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle.—Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing.—But suppose the word “beetle” had a use in these people’s language?—If so it would not be used as the name of a thing. The thing in the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something: for the box might even be empty.—No; one can `divide through’ by the thing in the box; it cancels out, whatever it