Luke

You said that the word "ouch" is a noun, like the word "house" is a noun. I asked you for an example of how the word "ouch" might be used in a sentenc...

Use it in a sentence.

As I've already told you: saying "ouch" doesn't name pain behaviour; saying "ouch" is pain behaviour. To say that "ouch" names a pain behaviour is to ...

I've been addressing your mistaken belief that: Therefore, I don't see how your response about learning language is relevant.

It’s not about context. “Ouch” is not a behaviour. Saying “ouch” (or saying anything) is a behaviour. As W says at 15: “naming something is rather lik...

I would agree that the act of saying "ouch" names a behaviour, but I would not agree that the word "ouch" names a behaviour.

What behaviour does it name? "Ouch" is not the name of a behaviour; it is an expression of pain. One does not name anyone's pain as "ouch". One says "...

We can talk about it in a public language; I see no issue there. However, the concept of a private language turns out to be incoherent, so the assumpt...

Wittgenstein says at 5) that "I know I am in pain" might mean "I am in pain", which is how you read it. But you are ignoring the first part where he s...

It seems very clear to me that 5) is not referring to a private language, and I don't understand how it possibly could be. What makes you think that i...

You have said a lot, but you did not address my previous post or answer my question, namely: Do you acknowledge that your numbered sections 2 and 5 co...

These two bolded sentences - which you believe are both said by the interlocutor - contradict each other. I don't see why the interlocutor would say b...

If we revisit the context in which the latter sentence occurs: I would consider "Yes, but all the same..." to be a reaction or response to Wittgenstei...

It's unclear what distinction you think there should be between sensation and concept, or how you think this distinction would help. However, Wittgens...

I don’t believe redundancy is the reason why “it can’t be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain.” What sort of joke wo...

Let me repeat your quote of PI 246 with some emphasis: Wittgenstein rejects the idea that we can know our private sensations.

I don’t believe that the quote supports your reading.

Obviously you are unable to provide a quote because you never did explain what "the meaning of the meaning" means. I suppose you are not going to addr...

Did you explain what "the meaning of the meaning" means during the last week or so of discussion? If so, I must have missed it. Please provide a quote...

I can't agree because I don't know what "the meaning of the meaning" means. You did not explain it. Not every phrase is a definition. To give the defi...

The only childish thing here is your ad hominem argument. Yes. No. If, as you claim, you have "always said that the meaning of the word is the definit...

You have not always said that the meaning of the word is the definition of the word. Our disagreement over this matter began when you accused me of "c...

:up:

Yes, you're probably right.

The meaning of the word is the definition of the word. You said so at the beginning of the quote. Were you wrong?

That's right. You accused me of "conflating the definitions with their meaning" and you claimed "These are separate" in this post. Here you are saying...

What’s the difference between a definition and its meaning? In other words, what is the difference between the definition of a word and the meaning of...

To be clear, the "something" in question at §304 is not a meaning or anything linguistic, but a private sensation; a feeling. However, I assume this i...

Your initial distinction was between a definition and its meaning: This is what I strongly disagreed with. You later accused me of disagreeing with a ...

You said: Yes, I am insisting this. On the other hand, you are “insisting” that there is a difference “between a definition (what the defined word mea...

Perhaps you could explain the difference between "what the defined word means" and "its meaning".

Thanks for the tip, appreciate it. I'll check it out.

No, I haven't read any. Thanks. I'll take another look and see if I have anything to add.

How can you not know? Aren't we talking about your definitions? You don't know what defines your terms? Your description of the type is that it might ...

Thanks, I did see it earlier and was meaning to respond, but didn't want to interrupt your discussion with @"Joshs" and his view of the radical incons...

On my reading, at least, Wittgenstein does not deny this “something more”, such as the sensation of pain.

If the "primary condition" of your definition of "present" is to make reference "solely to conscious experience", then how can "present" refer to anyt...

You spoke about what gives these terms their meaning, and what the past and future "consist of", rather than what the terms "has happened" and "to hap...

I asked what the phrases "has happened" and "to happen" mean. It is unclear whether you are providing the meanings of these phrases - what you think t...

Until this post, you had not defined any of the terms without reference to time; you had only provided the “defining feature” of the present or what t...

To give the “defining feature” of the present, or what the present should be defined “in reference to”, is not to give a definition. Also, you have ma...

I don't believe so. If that were true then you could simply define them. However, you have produced zero definitions of the terms "past", "present" or...

You asserted that we can "define these terms "past" "future", and "present", and understand them without any reference to a concept of time". I've ask...

I haven't asked you for a starting point; I've asked you for the definitions. To demonstrate that we can "define these terms "past" "future", and "pre...

You've missed my point here. I was countering your assertion that "Time cannot be described or defined without these references" to McTaggart's A-seri...

Not true. According to John McTaggart's widely referenced classification, "past", "present" and "future" are used to order (or describe) events in tim...

How does "time" imply the descriptions of past, present and future? Why do the descriptions of past, present and future not imply time? What do the de...

I have no idea what these terms could possibly mean in relation to each other if we don't already assume that they are in reference to time. Perhaps y...

No, this is what I said: It's a big leap, and a very uncharitable reading, for you to interpret this paragraph as me saying that the present is identi...

Do you honestly think I was suggesting that a human perspective and "the present" are identical? We are discussing time, aren't we? As I have made cle...