How did Wittgenstein describe language? There's a word that he used "Language is ..." but I forgot it. Also general Wittgenstein discussion.
Shapes do not have religion.
a virus
How would Wittgenstein respond to wew lad?
>>7705417
"hahaha i like cocks"
it was a really obscure word he uses does anyone know, think it sums up his views on language.
[concatenation] of names of objects
he also calls it a game
Use.
Meaning is use.
>>7705483
He went back on this at least slightly didn't he?
>>7705395
Language is a game.
>>7705588
It was similar to that but instead it was more of an insult.
>>7705395
a form of life?
>>7705415
>>>/tumblr/
>Also general Wittgenstein discussion.
Start with Frege
>>7705590
"What we are destroying is nothing but houses of cards and we are clearing up the ground of language on which they stood."
?
>>7705635
nah it was just a word like "Language is" then the word. may of been "fallacious".. i'm not sure, i'm sure the word starts with either an f or a t
>>7705626
Which works from Frege would you recommend ?
>>7705492
Nope. It's one of the core ideas of his later philosophy.
>>7705395
Jewish sophist and demagogue. thanks, ill stick with aristotle
>>7706392
what is a sophist
>>7706413
A miserable little pile of Sachverhalte.
something about a beetle in a box.
>>7705681
Bumping for an answer to this
>If I say of myself that it is only from my own case that I know what the word "pain" means - must I not say the same of other people too? And how can I generalize the one case so irresponsibly?
>Now someone tells me that he knows what pain is only from his own case! --Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a "beetle". No one can look into anyone else's box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle. --Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing. --But suppose the word "beetle" had a use in these people's language? --If so it would not be used as the name of a thing. The thing in the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something: for the box might even be empty. --No, one can 'divide through' by the thing in the box; it cancels out, whatever it is.
>That is to say: if we construe the grammar of the expression of sensation on the model of 'object and designation' the object drops out of consideration as irrelevant.
As for the example of mathematics specifically, you'll want to look at the argument that begins in section 143, and goes on right up to the Beetle Box argument mentioned above. In short, mathematics is based upon "rule following", and as Wittgenstein shows (in Section 201), "No course of action could be determined by a rule, because every course of action can be made out to accord with the rule."
