Free Mp3 Ringtones

[defgf24uw]

Wittgenstein thought (under)


<div style=\The so-called private language thesis

private language thesis, referring to Wittgenstein there can be no private language argument. The topic of \However, many of its former paragraphs later also directly related to the topic.

this is referred to Wittgenstein's private language: \languages. \Extremely difficult to crack password, a small race of the last descendant of the language spoken, these are not a private language. Some have argued the meaning of words are all people from the Council, and their different people, so all words are essentially telling their own stories, are private. On the one hand, there are a lot of people are the people advocating the meaning of words from the Council, on the other hand, we actually often seem to understand each other, understand each other not just from the thought, then the words will mean the idea of people who self- Is there any way to avoid falling into the proprietary language concluded it? Wittgenstein do not think he's a private language thesis is fundamentally the meaning of words to oppose the idea of people from the Council. Some other people, do not advocate the words are private, but claims part of the language can be private. Ai Yeer the beginning that you can create a complete private language, then that can only be grafted private language public language branch. Admitted that some of the private language of the object for the public naming and describing the public understandable, but while some private object, private experiences / feelings,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], their names and tell only one person to understand. However, if this claim with the feeling of reductionism, some private language will eventually expand to the whole private language, because of all the common object is in fact down through the private feeling of perceived.

private language thesis caused a prolonged controversy. These arguments can be said that a series of almost melee. Among the melee, there will inevitably trace the source of Wittgenstein started complaining about the definition of private language is not quite clear, from all angles after the rebuttal of private language is even more ambiguous clue. I think the definition of Wittgenstein on private language generally understood Yi Xiao, and just as the debate is sometimes necessary to define more carefully the development of a number. I admit that the private language Wittgenstein to refute every want is not very clear, the individual argument is misleading, but several of his main idea is consistent. In most cases, is the depth and breadth of these lines so that they obscure, rather than Wittgenstein's statement is not clear enough. This book can not start Wittgenstein's argument, section by section, I will outline several major clues,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and pointed out that \

most general position is simply an object that can not create a symbolic link and 〔268〕. \Elucidation of this book to many, but even those who expressly oppose the alleged theory, in discussing the word is likely to feel they unwittingly into the allegations of the stereotype, for example, that \content words because the feeling is really very complicated, hard to spot the perspective of its use. Wittgenstein pointed out that the pain and hurt the feeling of the word link, like the gift and the gift of movement that links can not produce meaning, the meaning presented in the cause and effect of this action in the weaving, the meaning of pain is no different.

alleged to be completed in the system, even so, the allegations are still only a preparation. (264), and the system, including the agreement, the agreement can not be completed by the definition of the heart (262), but through communication practice to complete. \Second, the pain of this event is a feeling of the event, not out of the feel the pain, but the yard is independent of the feeling was an event. I think the syntax is different from the pain I feel in the yard was also different from the one I saw. Let's take a look at the following three sentences:

1, I feel pain.

2, I think the yard was.

3, I saw someone in the yard.

has alleged that the last sentence, it may be wrong: probably no one in the yard. Sentence 1 is not known or judge that can not be refuted in the same way, saying \that \Sentence 3 is not talking about feelings? ? Unless you are feeling reductionist. Some people you see in the yard, others can be seen in the yard some, you feel pain, people often do not feel pain, this difference is to learn to \Although the use

sentence 2 of the \the yard was. \We can not simply be inferred from the same surface syntax of the two statements that have the same logical structure, in a more general sense, we have to pay attention,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], do not always use the same model to the role of vision statement. Statement is a statement of fact does not make judgments. 〔〕 I think that〕 〔pain and his pain exactly the same surface syntax, but the \I think the pain is my pain. Pain is not like the beetles, the table as an object 〔293〕. We generally kept separate from awareness, understanding things as \

Some commentators think that Wittgenstein in the 270 〔Every time I think the E, for high blood pressure, so that I can find E to determine, as is E, all does not matter. 〕 I think E is not necessarily proof of E, is E. But in fact he is in proving, in this case, said that E, but can not say that it is E, because there is no longer in addition I think another one outside E E, quality words, I feel pain that I have a pain. Here is the ultimate feel, not another an object,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], an objective. Just put me in a cellar, every time someone said \So, every time I think (hear sounds) at five, you can determine meal to come, as this time is five pm all does not matter. Every time I feel like the stock market fell to blood pressure, which is independent of the stock market is down.

Wittgenstein did not object to my date who had the feeling of pain against it? His objection is to hurt and I think I saw the red side by side. That pain is a pain, I will not separate, \This is the feeling of a piece of syntax. He did not say, I said I did not hurt my feelings involved, said he felt his pain does not involve the contrary, he said that, I hurt, I have a pain that I feel pain. That and I think that it is red, and I feel like I hit the bull's-eye, is not the same. I am hurt and his pain not the same as the syntax,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], then, is the word pain in my pain and pain in his syntax or meaning are not the same? Otherwise; This is similar to Germany and I know you by reading through the travel very different understanding of Germany, but \I look forward to a loud noise and I heard a loud noise is very different from the noise, but the \

pain and the yard was not the same thing. This probably is a private language advocates would like to hear, because the first step in this claim for recognition of a private object, according to that feeling is such a private object, my pain is my \pain. \Private experience / feeling from private property, the \Therefore, as long as the first step, acknowledge the existence of private objects, then we will almost can not recognize the existence of common language to talk about the object. However, there are several doubts. First, only you really know you hurt? Second, even if the start Only you know your pain, if you told me, I do not know you in pain? Third, even if you can not use common language to talk about your pain, there is not necessarily private language, because there is a possibility: we can not meaningfully talk about it.

really only you know you're hurt? Wittgenstein's answer is: on the one hand, in the most general sense, I can know you're hurt, you're hungry, you want to eat blocks of ice cream and so on. On the other hand, I generally can not say, \〔246〕 you really know that I hurt? You see my Ziyaliezui appearance, guess I hurt, I hurt inference, but you do not really know
?????
More articles related to topics：


[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

ugg schuhe Jujuboside A on focal cerebral ischemia