Banno

Hmm. That does not count against the point, so far as I see. and Here he is taking on a representational theory of meaning - the picture theory.The In...

Are you claiming that meaning is just information...?

You use "representation" a lot. Is meaning just representation?

That seems to me to prefigure the answer from Austin.

This and the text thereabouts lead me to suppose that the picture theory of meaning is itself being rejected here. More generally, we might ask "what ...

So potential energy is not real? Ideal gasses should never be used to find approximations for pressure and temperature, nor imaginary numbers in calcu...

Yep.

Interesting that he took the swastika as his example. Yes, I think it's about how seeing someone as a zombie is unnatural - I am taken by §419... This...

Hmm.

fair call it all seems a bit useless. I’d join you if I had much choice.

Yeah, you will. :wink:

Oh, I remember now. You take the picture theory seriously. That is, you carry it over into the PI, and presumably into On Certainty. As a question of ...

Could do, but there is much of interest in part one, after the private language argument - and yet in this thread we can't even get that far without i...

So do we start a seperate thread for the latter half of the PI? I suppose if we make the OP specific enough we might engage mod support in not simply ...

Well, if you know what needs to be so for a sentence to be true, what more do you need? What more is there to it's meaning?

It might be helpful to visit Davidson here. What does the sentence S mean? Well, as a first approximation, we want some other sentence p such that we ...

What's sad is, this thread has spent so much time on the first hundred remarks, but there is so much of great interest in the last hundred that remain...

Well, that debate occurred long after it was written, so that's to be expected. Trying to understand him in those terms is putting the cart before the...

I don't know what to make fo that. Are you claiming there are untrue facts? Or truths that are not facts? There is a recent tendency to take "fact" to...

:wink: Do you want my opinion or Wittgenstein's? In those simple terms, I think the better approach is direct realism, after Austin - Many of the word...

Austin is on the cover of Philosophy Now... In conflict with Kit Fine. What fun.

yep. The Euthyphro originally considered justice, and is often also applied to The Good(?), but why not apply it, if truth is mooted as here? Is it th...

I'm saying that there is a clear enough use of "true" that applies to propositions; and that if you want to invent a different way of using the word, ...

Your rant on intrinsic and extrinsic meanings is incoherent. In particular, Folk have been at pains to try to get you to understand that language game...

Well, more that meaning is irrelevant. It's use that is of interest, and asking for a slab in an Australian pub is for some an effective way of improv...

Indeed he was. But many of our fellows here are content to continue in confusion. The most deserving of pity are those who think exactly what they per...

Hmm. Again, "Slab" is an Australian term for a carton of two dozen tins of beer.

indeed, it seems that Kripkes proof shows rules are not objectively true.

;) perhaps. There is so much of this sort of waffle that it must have some purpose.

Well, neither is quite right. It's a question about meaning. What do we claim when we say "Jenny can add"? And more generally, what do we claim when w...

Well, yep. And that bit about whereof one cannot speak... All this is not to say that there is nothing profound, or transcendent, or whatever misnomer...

Interesting. That's not dissimilar to logical atomism, as found in Russell and the early Wittgenstein, and brings with it most of the problems thereof...

Nice. There remains a problem for teachers, asked to mark off that little Jenny has learned how to add. We test Jenny on 2+3, 7+9, and so on, for some...

You know this makes no sense? At best, it is a hand-wave at the mysterious. It's propositions that are true or false. Not gods.

Ah, that works. The first step, looking so innocent. But see §48. What is the simple here? Here is a slab; there, a block, for the purposes of the gam...

:rofl: You just did. Now someone will start bleating about use and mention. As if mentioning wasn't a use.

Thanks. Except the bit where it doesn't matter in the slightest what the builder and the assistant have "in their heads" so long as the assistant brin...

The blind leading the blind... This thread gets better and better.

You repeat the same misunderstanding over and over. I don't think there is any helping you.

As I and several other folk have pointed out, the difference between truth and "absolute truth" remains obscure.

Where?

I’m not that interested. My question was quite specific.

That's not addressing my question.

Sure. That's not what I was asking. Schop hasn't interested me enough to move past tertiary sources. I wondered why Wittgenstein admired him, if somew...

On a quick search, I wasn't able to find the source of this. Is it apocryphal? Does anyone have the original location?

Oh, I wasn't referring only to that post. Just generally, the Wittgenstein you talk about bears little resemblance to the one with which I am familiar...

I'm not going to go into any great detail here, the conversation doesn't much warrant it. @"RussellA" seems incapable of stepping aside from reference...

Again, putting the word "absolute" in front of "truth" does nothing helpful. Verbal handwaving. Like saying "god is truth". It can't be made sense of ...

Wittgenstein and religion This might give an idea of the discussions surrounding Wittgenstein and god.

Yep. But you will.