Wittgensteinians
Life in the Post-Analytic World, Given by the Man Who Ended Philosophy As History Knew It

Home » Concerning Wittgenstein's Ideas » Wittgenstein and Language » [Wittrs] On the Misuse of OLP
[Wittrs] On the Misuse of OLP [message #3524] Thu, 11 February 2010 04:47 Go to next message
Guest Not Logged In

--- On Wed, 2/10/10, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> 1. The "rule" that you think accompanies "bachelor" is only
> a sense. It's a fence in the yard. For two speakers to share
> the sense, they must both know of it. That's all 242 says.
>
> And speakers who do not observe the fence do not break the
> rule of the language community, they just adjust the sense
> (take the fence down, so to speak). The language community
> does this all the time, with all sorts of words. Think of it
> as a volleyball net.
>
> Also, this isn't a policy. It's not subject to anything
> majoritarian. It's governed by how brains process language
> and by what emerges from people behaving in the language
> culture. You seem to think that if something has "minority
> sense," that it breaks a rule. Language has never worked
> this way.

Once upon a time, when I thought it was useful to talk TO Sean, rather than ABOUT Sean, I said that he had an "anything goes" approach to language. The above illustrates what I meant. For Sean, there can be no "language takes a holiday." To Sean, no matter how someone uses a word (under other circumstances - i.e., with other audiences - I would put "uses a word" in scare quotes), it will be "language," and if it doesn't fit with the sorts of normative usage that broadly defines "the game" then they have simply expanded the game. Now. some of this may occur as when metaphorical extension becomes standard usage (i.e., one meaning today of "blow up" is "to get angry"), but to argue that no matter how one uses a word it "do[es] not break the rule of the language community" is absurd. Now, admittedly, I think that Wittgenstein did a poor job with "rules," but that is a discussion for another time. But the point here is that Sean's "anything goes" notion is
quite silly. If you don't think so, come over to my can of peas, and we'll lick it over a cup of puke. Now, Sean's repeated references to brains, and "brain scripts," and "brains processing language" etc., is very interesting. It is now standard cognitive "science" talk. What is interesting is that it is a sort of institutionalized-language-takes-a-holiday. When I used to teach, I would joke with my students and say that, for example, one could define "seeing" as "the creation and utilization of representations of the world in the brain constructed via light entering the eye*." Then I would point out how the word "see" (and related forms) is really used as in, for example, "John saw the police and ran away." What was witnessed when the person said that? Were they observing John's brain? No, of course not. They observed John's behavior within a particular context. That, of course, illustrates a part of the language games in which "see" (and related forms
are used). Now, it is true that saying things like "When we see, we are really seeing a representation" has become its own little langauge game. But this does not make it OK. Indeed, this notion is one of the worst things that ever happened to psychology, philosophy, and now much of neuro"science." It is an institutionalized-language-takes-a-holiday; it is exactly the sort of thing that Wittgenstein's "meaning is use" was supposed to illuminate as garbage. Now, when Sean talks about things that PEOPLE do as "brain behavior" he is, of course, making exactly the kind of error that later Wittgenstein was trying to get people to avoid. But, I guess I could be wrong as Sean is a self-proclaimed "master" of Wittgensteinian philosophy.


*Subsequently, I came across this definition in some piece of trash masquerading as a scientific paper! 

========================================Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/


[Wittrs] On the Misuse of OLP [message #3535 is a reply to message #3524] Thu, 11 February 2010 18:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sean Wilson is currently offline  Sean Wilson
Messages: 793
Registered: August 2009
Location: Form of Life
Senior Member

(Glen)

1. This point below isn't bad. But the matter of "brain script" is dealt with here: http://seanwilson.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=1240&start=0&S=f7be 91516311c79a95c6924ab2f75637. You have yet to understand it. All it attempts to do is use computer notation to illustrate sense. And you also don't understand that it represents an intermediate position to brute-behaviorism and what is called "cognitivism" -- that is, it represents Wittgensteinianism. And it does so by borrowing certain arguments from AI, but using them in ways opposite to their liking. It's a creative way to wed Wittgenstein to Fodor, I think.  (But this last point I am not exactly clear on).   

2. The OLP technique you describe is supposed to illustrate that the sense of "see" used out of context creates the puzzle that falsely employs philosophers. On this much we agree. But that doesn't mean that when someone uses "see" in colorful ways, that nonsense is made. It only means that the sense must be captured. The fallacy here is not to realize that ordinary senses of see are themselves composed only of portions of other ideas that are: (a) assembled for the current vehicle; and (b) can be broken down and used partially here or there -- which creates senses of "see." 

That's the point. That there are SENSES. To assert that only an ordinary sense of "see" could ever be used in language, is NOT to do anything remotely close to what Wittgenstein espoused. In fact, for one to say that anything out of an ordinary sense of a word would be nonsense; or that language only amounts to how the person behaves -- neither of these are Wittgensteinian. 

I don't know how many quotes I'd have to pull out to show you this. I noticed that you responded to my last mail and apparently did not read the quotes. What have you to say about a Rose with teeth, fat Wednesday, and a yellow "e" -- AND the assertion by Wittgenstein that these are NOT METAPHORICAL??? (Please see quotes in the very last mail).

Part of me does not mind your devotion to behaviorism. Another part really does not mind your spirited nature. But what bothers me is that you seem to think that you have some better hold of Wittgenstein than me. And for the life of me, all I can see about this matter is that you do not understand certain high-end Wittgenstenian notions. Why not just say "I don't agree with that part of Wittgenstein." Wouldn't that be a better course of action?

Regards
 
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html


----- Original Message ----
From: Glen Sizemore <gmsizemore2@yahoo.com>
To: wittrsamr@freelists.org
Sent: Thu, February 11, 2010 4:47:52 AM
Subject: [Wittrs] Re: [C] Re: Games with Logic and Bachelor


 Now, Sean's repeated references to brains, and "brain scripts," and "brains processing language" etc., is very interesting. It is now standard cognitive "science" talk. What is interesting is that it is a sort of institutionalized-language-takes-a-holiday. When I used to teach, I would joke with my students and say that, for example, one could define "seeing" as "the creation and utilization of representations of the world in the brain constructed via light entering the eye*." Then I would point out how the word "see" (and related forms) is really used as in, for example, "John saw the police and ran away." What was witnessed when the person said that? Were they observing John's brain? No, of course not. They observed John's behavior within a particular context. That, of course, illustrates a part of the language games in which "see" (and related forms
are used). Now, it is true that saying things like "When we see, we are really seeing a representation" has become its own little langauge game. But this does not make it OK. Indeed, this notion is one of the worst things that ever happened to psychology, philosophy, and now much of neuro"science." It is an institutionalized-language-takes-a-holiday; it is exactly the sort of thing that Wittgenstein's "meaning is use" was supposed to illuminate as garbage. Now, when Sean talks about things that PEOPLE do as "brain behavior" he is, of course, making exactly the kind of error that later Wittgenstein was trying to get people to avoid. But, I guess I could be wrong as Sean is a self-proclaimed "master" of Wittgensteinian philosophy. 


*Subsequently, I came across this definition in some piece of trash masquerading as a scientific paper! 



========================================Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/


[Wittrs] On the Misuse of OLP [message #3548 is a reply to message #3524] Thu, 11 February 2010 21:41 Go to previous message
Rajasekhar is currently offline  Rajasekhar
Messages: 52
Registered: August 2009
Member

Dear Mr Glen Sizemore 
Probably you are not well acquainted either with philosophical words or with Wittgenstein.For explanation sake you may put it this way.Seeing is two ways, one is optical and the other is mental.Without the accrued intellect in the head one may not be able to identify what is seen.This is to bring your kind attention that philosophy begins with this mental seeing.If it is incorrect everything goes wrong.Hence Wittgenstein suggests that philosophy should work with a therauptic value so that mental ill health caused by bad language may be treated.Hope I could get you some thing.thank you 
sekhar

--- On Fri, 12/2/10, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@yahoo.com>
Subject: [C] [Wittrs] On the Misuse of OLP
To: wittrsamr@freelists.org
Date: Friday, 12 February, 2010, 5:17 AM





You chose to allow Sean Wilson (whoooo26505@yahoo.com) even though this message failed authentication

Click to disallow








The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/


Previous Topic: [Wittrs] Language as a Set of Cue Cards
Next Topic: [Wittrs] Kripke's Language Game Solved
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Feb 25 21:32:08 EST 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04907 seconds