Banno

?39. A name, that most simple part of the rejected theory of meaning, has a use even in cases where the referent is no more. "Excalibur" means Excalib...

And here, at ?38, we find alink to the thread on Kripke. What is the relation between name and thing named? Wittgenstein's italics. Why on earth shoul...

Has it been all too much for you, Frank?

A part of the book that can be overlooked is the way Wittgenstein is teaching a method for doing philosophy. §37 is a case in point. He does not go of...

It's interesting how it shows that, by looking at only a few limited examples, a generation of philosophers took on a theory that is simply wrong.

If, as (3) proposes, one of the properties, or some conjointly, are believed by A to pick out some individual uniquely, then the reverse should follow...

So to (3). One of the properties, or some conjointly, are believed by A to pick out some individual uniquely. The discussion on P.83 goes towards expl...

Of course, this is not sufficient to pick Nixon out form any other human-shaped individual. It is not a definite description and does not serve to pic...

So we must take care of certain circularities. We can't make sense of Cicero as "the man who denounced Catiline" if Catiline is no more than the man d...

OK, I'm going to leave that hanging. I'm gathering that your approach is part of the reason Kripke brought the notion of a vote in - Thesis (4). Lets'...

So you would replace (2)"One of the properties, or some conjointly, are believed by A to pick out some individual uniquely," with something like (2') ...

So perhaps the remedy is to try to find out what @"Terrapin Station" means... in particular, Why would this be worthy of mention here?

Fine. The point at hand is that we do not need them to talk about him.

Where do you see that?

And so to the critique of (2), starting on p.80. A first counterargument: The learned fellow defines Cicero as "the man who denounced Catiline". The p...

Oh, Sam. It's not worth the effort. Edit: I guess it's possible some here might come to see what is going on in the PI, although I'm not too hopeful.

I will just point to @"Sam26"'s reply elsewhere.

So the next bit is about the logical relations between the theses. (5) can stand after (6) is rejected. There are numerous counterexamples for (2), "O...

I don't know. I don't remember what I once thought. But you have access to the old thread? You tell me.

I hope it has.

Thanks.

Just...no.

Un seems to be on fire at the moment.

Love, and be silent. Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave my heart into my mouth.

Alright, then? Cheers!

What do you think?

Maybe.

IN that the sentence is in a language, and is about language. But not in the way that "this sentence starts with 'this'" is self-referential.

Individual? The meaning, so far as that term has any meaning, is found in the doing, which for language cannot be an individual activity. The meaning ...

The self-reference is not directly to the sentence but to the language in whcih the sentence is expressed.

And yet you said it.

Well, no it's not like that, because that sentence is about anthills, while the other is about words. It's not a direct self-reference, but "language ...

I'd say we build meaning rather than assign it.

I'm content to be the centre of attention.

...the philosophical point, contra @"Baden", being that it is a showing, not a saying, but with words.

..says how much I love you, and yet does so in words...

Are you stalking me? My ancient wisdom, reincarnated in a new forum.

Thou shalt not laugh. Philosophy is serious, and one ought not have any fun while philosophising. If it is funny, it is not philosophy.

??

I might go to this: Here he is targeting both Searle and Lewis. The supposition that Aristotle might have become a merchant and never contributed to P...

(c) For any successful theory, the account must not be circular. The properties which are used in the vote must not themselves involve the notion of r...

6. The statement, 'If X exists, then X has most of the q' s' expresses a necessary truth so - in every possible world... There's the rub.

5. The statement, 'If X exists, then X has most of the q' s' is known a priori by the speaker. Hm. Is it?

4. If the vote yields no unique object, 'x' does not refer. And if not, it ain't.

3. If most, or a weighted most, of the q's are satisfied by one unique object y, then y is the referent of 'x'. And if not, it ain't? the "weighted" b...

2. One of the properties, or some conjointly, are believed by A to pick out some individual uniquely. A definite description.

Only for Kripke to take shots at.

So on to Lecture II, and the formulation of the theory of reference being investigated. The bullet points, one by one: 1. To every name or designating...

Well, perhaps it is that you wish to discuss the end of the book without working through the detail. IS there any reason we should not move on?

More perplexity, You agree with me that "referring needs no grand philosophical explanation", going further in saying such is impossible. Yet you insi...