Wittgenstein. An analysis of syntax.
John Jones
syntax and organizing principle of the elements of syntax.
It wasn't as Hinttika said - that Witt's major development (1929), was
about changing from a phenomenological language to a physicalist one,
but it was Witt's distinction that bore fruition in his idea of
"language-games") between organizing principles and their elements (and
the "language of elements" which we call "syntax").
"Language-games" was just such an organizing principle of elements. The
elements that were manifested by this principle were ostension and
rules. The latter marked Wittgenstein's continued struggle (up to
Philosophical Investigations) to recognise the distinction he eventually
arrived at - the distinction between logic/syntax and organizing
principle. The latter saw rudimentary mention in the Tractatus as
"showing". But later, a naturalism took hold and he developed the idea
"language games". But the general idea of a game or organizing principle
was not satisfactorily recovered by Witt., I think, but was left to only
brief insight and particular examples to deliver.
This is of no interest to anyone involved in mathematics or sceptical
pursuits such as atheism. Why is this? Because Witt.'s idea challenges
that view of the world, a view that is represented by a syntactical
mathematics and physicalism, which passes over the organizing principle
of elements (e.g. as a bouquet is an organizing principle of flowers)
and restricts itself to a description of only its elements.
John Jones
Bloody good post that.
Jesse F. Hughes
Oh, yes! Another 200 pages written just like that, and they'll call
you "Dr." and everything!
Assuming, of course, that you really did submit a thesis proposal, as
you claimed. You didn't forget, did you?
--
"There are people [...] who think it's socially acceptable to level
accusations of mental illness in insulting exchanges to make
points[...] [They] are rather sick [them]selves, and in reality, are
sociopathic." --- James Harris, evidently a self-described sociopath
John Jones
I did submit it. No beef.
bigfl...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your critics may suggest you 'need' beef, for the b12 ;-)
BOfL
Jesse F. Hughes
>> Assuming, of course, that you really did submit a thesis proposal, as
>> you claimed. You didn't forget, did you?
>>
>
> I did submit it. No beef.
What does "no beef" mean? That the proposal was accepted?
--
"Civilizations have risen and crumbled as my people fight your people,
and still it remains the same old battle. I come from a line that
mostly walks alone, fighting for the truth against people [like you],
but my people always win." -- James S. Harris
John Jones
> John Jones <jonesc...@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>>> Assuming, of course, that you really did submit a thesis proposal, as
>>> you claimed. You didn't forget, did you?
>>>
>> I did submit it. No beef.
>
> What does "no beef" mean? That the proposal was accepted?
>
I proposed Kant to Cardiff and Witt to Southampton. Both were accepted
on principle. I just have to take up the offer.
Jesse F. Hughes
Well, on the one hand, congrats.
On the other hand, if your writing here is any indication, this is a
dismal symptom of the current state of philosophy and that's a darn
shame.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"But regardless of my goofs, my reality of journals is different from
ANY of yours, as they just treat me in a special way."
-- James S. Harris
pba...@worldonline.nl
Dear John,
As a matter of fact this is probably very interesting to atheists like
myself. Principally languiage cannot be defined as something purely
logical but should be consifered as a result of natural selection.
Indeed Wittgenstein almost stumbled on the meme theory!
If language had been created instead of having evolved the
problems Wiitgenstein encountered might not have existed.
Love,
Peter van Velzen
November 2009
Amstelveen
The Netherland
Errol
>
> This is of no interest to anyone involved in mathematics or sceptical
> pursuits such as atheism. Why is this? Because Witt.'s idea challenges
> that view of the world, a view that is represented by a syntactical
> mathematics and physicalism, which passes over the organizing principle
> of elements (e.g. as a bouquet is an organizing principle of flowers)
> and restricts itself to a description of only its elements.
His view denies the physicalist requirement for the existance of
structures or processes that might be responsible for thought in the
brain without providing an acceptable alternative.
I deny his view.
John Jones
The brain is an extra piece of matter, a stuck on wobbly and unnecessary
appendage, that has no bearing to anything we do.
Tom Sr.
> In the mature Witt. there is a split between logic and grammar, between
> syntax and organizing principle of the elements of syntax.
Grammar as "philosophy".
The Horror. The Horror.
-Tom Sr.
John Jones
Yes, you are saying that the elements (the brain) are the only thing(s)
that counts. Whereas, as I said in my last paragraph, we should not
forget the organizing principle of elements.
In this case, the organizing principle of the elements we call the
'brain' are our experiences. It is our experiences that point out, or
organize, the elements we call the brain. It isn't the element(s) - the
brain - that points out our experiences.
Errol
I would agree with you if mankind could be regarded as having no known
origin, but the fact of evolution provides a working explanation of
our experiences developing simultaneously with our brains.
Errol
I would also agree with you if you said the mind instead of the brain.
Zinnic
Sniff! Keep it simple!.
No brain, no mind, no experience, no flowers, no bouquet!
John Jones
You haven't touched my argument.
John Jones
I'm not being understood, I think.
John Jones
Alan Ford
>> I would agree with you if mankind could be regarded as having no known
>> origin, but the fact of evolution provides a working explanation of
>> our experiences developing simultaneously with our brains.
>
> You haven't touched my argument.
Touch it. You know you want to.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?