Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Question #1:
Wittgenstein shows us these limits by delimiting language from within, showing the
facts. It is only at this level, the level of the atomic, that a correlation can be
described between anything that could be called language and the world.
The results of two logical operations the tautology and the contradiction have this
in common; they are both nonsense, that is, they tell us nothing about the world
that when combined they result in a tautology -- tautologies say nothing, but they
show the identity of form that Wittgenstein asserts must exist. An identity of
form between logic and mathematics, between logical propositions and the world.
The logic of the world which the propositions of logic show in tautologies,
mathematics shows in equations (6.22). The fact
that the propositions of logic are tautologies shows the formal - logical -
properties of language, of the world.... In order that propositions connected
together in a definite way may give a tautology they must have definite properties
of structure. That they give a tautology when so connected shows therefore that
they possess these properties of structure (his emphasis 6.12).
To rephrase: the logical structure of the world is reflected (shown) through logic
of the world. All we can know is that the relationship between elementary
identity of structure.
facts (2.1).
must share the structure of reality. This is the only grasp on reality we can
expect to have. Pictures show us the way in which we can grasp reality -- a
structure of identity. The only way we can compare a picture to reality is through
its form (structure) it shows us the link our language has with reality, but it cannot
That which mirrors itself in language, language cannot represent. That which
expresses itself in language, we cannot express by language (4.121).
A representation of the link is not possible it is the impossible ideal of getting
outside of the world and then describing it getting outside of language and
describing it -- these are the limits of thought and language. We cannot know,
understand, or theorize our connexion with reality we must delimit from within for
significance of his work was clear to him, that which he studied and worked at was
meaningful way, just as ethics and psychology and most other fields of human study
can say nothing. What these fields of thought try to say and do is to describe the
inexplicable and the unknowable -- things which are unsayable. The field of physics
and medicine call out to him, only in the realm of mathematics can we do more than
merely show. In the realm of mathematics we can speak and in none other. In the
Tractatus Wittgenstein showed the line between that which we can say and that
elementary or atomic stuff. The relationship between reality and our language can
only be shown since we cannot know that which is at the heart of our language -- to
The sense of the world must lie outside the world (6.41).
Although the above statement was made by Wittgenstein in a lead-up to a
discussion of ethics it could also be said in response to the metaphysician and the
natural scientist. The modern system with its faith in natural laws as a way of
explaining nature are in a worse position than the people of earlier times who
placed their faith in God and Fate. The modern peoples believe that everything is
explained and this is where they are incorrect (6.372). Natural laws do not
themselves describe necessity in the world, they are the spawn of language.
Question #2:
ideas and explain how they are inconsistent with the broader lexicon of the
language use: Language communities practice certain language games that are not
often obvious even to (or perhaps especially to) the players of these games.
Language games are explored and described for the purpose of eliminating the
problems that arise from the usual or everyday use of the term. Wittgenstein
In order to get clear about the meaning of the word 'think' we watch ourselves
while we think; what we observe will be what the word means! - But this concept is
not used like that. (It would be as if without knowing how to play chess, I were to
try and make out what the word 'mate' meant by close observation of the last
move of some game of chess.) p. 111
This way of approaching 'think' addresses it as a process of a varied nature,
singular thing merely because we use a deceptively singular term to describe it.
Yet we see the problem with the above misguided means of observing 'thought'
immediately upon reading it (ie. we watch ourselves while we think). We are often
misled into believing that 'think' is very much like 'eat' or 'talk'. It appears that
Clearly if we were to use 'think' in the same manner as we use 'talk' we would be
distinctions is that in order to talk we must also think whereas the reverse is not
region. We use our larynx, mouth, tongue and diaphragm in concert as a means of
undertaking the task of talking. Thinking is quite different in that we have little
the brain but the processes and conditions of thought are much more opaque than
they are for speech. Another consideration that Wittgenstein finds important to
describe is the outward evidence that a person 'thinks' versus, for example the
outward appearance of a person when s/he 'talks'. We can definitely know when a
person 'talks' and when that person does not, the same can not be said for the
activity of 'thinking'.
In discussing the meaning of the term 'understand' and upon realizing that it
compared to more mundane ones. Indeed his question is very pertinent. What
other things in our lives are similar to the mental concepts of 'understanding' and
'thought'? And to further question how we can identify or know (as a surety) that
Wittgenstein goes on in this same way to try and describe what it is for someone
out so explicitly. We do not use induction as the grounds for action, on the
contrary induction is so much a part of our natural lives that we are just naturally
inductive (p113). For example; we do not use induction as the means of a rational
argument with ourselves about how to interact with fire (ie. "Fire has always
burned me, so it will happen now too") (p113). In fact it seems that induction is
merely the natural reaction we undergo when interacting with our environment -- an
The analogy appears to work quite well, when we 'understand' we do not undergo a
be, this is all the justification we require in our lives -- perhaps the question did
not need answering. Just as we feel perfectly justified not to touch a flame based
Wittgenstein goes on in similar spirit to what I have described above, but then he
the value of all of these calculating and speculative questions. The concept of
clearly defined necessary and sufficient conditions perhaps do not belong in the
everyday use of language definitions are seldom widely agreed upon or known, often
To suppose that there must be [clear definitions] would be like supposing that
whenever children play with a ball they play a game according to strict rules (p
119).
Through remaining firmly planted on the ground we can be more accurate and come
closer to the truth through a use based exploration than through a highly
theoretical calculus. Remaining firmly planted in the use of language seems after
all much more appropriate than any amount of theorizing and calculating about
language. This point is very important to make: our language is use, it evolved as a
tool that has taken humanity far, to diverge from the practical is to diverge from
Describing the multifarious uses of the word 'think' is something we are not
capable of doing. The list of necessary and sufficient conditions that it would be
question that Wittgenstein attempts to make us face at this point is; why should
'thinking' in its myriad of uses, "what is such a description useful for" (p123)?
And the naive idea that one forms of it ['think'] does not correspond to reality at
all. We expect a smooth contour and what we get to see is ragged. Here it might
really be said that we have constructed a false picture.
It is not to be expected of this word that it should have a unified employment; we
should rather expect the opposite. (p123)
Whence came the concept of thinking? It came; "From everyday language" (p123).
The answer of how we should understand 'thinking' should also come from this
source. The truly reasonable answer comes not from theory that is vastly
divergent from the realities of language. The truly reasonable answer comes not
from a cognitive urge to lay down every possible necessary and sufficient condition
-- these are beside the point. The understanding we glean about 'thinking' should
come from an exploration of the very conditions upon which 'thinking' as use arose,
the conditions from which 'thinking' is even now developing. These the unstated
These are some of the unstated and unspoken developments of 'thinking' that
Wittgenstein elucidates for the last few pages of this chapter: Humans learn to
our use of terms is dependent on the circumstances within which we learned them.
study of language that appears most likely to succeed. Firmly grounded in use,
the question: Why do we have to answer that question, what is the purpose?