Yeah, but at least when I try to figure out size 10, I get to listen to music.
Actually, in all seriousness, the reason I've never understood reading Hegel, etc. is because so much of the conversation seems to revolve around trying to figure out what these terrible writers were saying and why -- the conversation is about the conversation, and it never touches the real world. I remember arguing with a professor about Russell's "the king of France is bald" thing, and saying, "But that's not the way it works in language." And he said, "But that's the way it works in logic," and I said, "But that's not the way it works in language," and he said, "But logic doesn't care." And I thought, well, shouldn't it? If you're having a discussion about the logic of language, then shouldn't you actually care about the actual properties and uses of language? If the only way you can make your argument is by disregarding all the ways the real world doesn't agree with it, then it's not a very strong argument. I mean, is there something I'm missing?
It just seems like all that finance stuff where there's no actual money, or mathematical physics that doesn't take into account the actual world. Yes, the emperor's clothes are very beautiful, etc. Pardon me while I buy a pair of pants that actually exist.
Well, when the world disagrees with our logic and our math, we have to change our underlying assumptions, which is what e.g. Wittgenstein was willing to do and Russell wasn't. (You would like the later Wittgenstein, and he could write like the dickens.)
E.g., here Wittgenstein is demanding that one's assumptions about language match up with how language is really used, for instance where he goes
Consider for example the proceedings we call "games." I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all? - Don't say: "There must be something common, or they would not be called 'games'" - but look and see whether there is anything common to all. - For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don't think, but look!
Actually, in all seriousness, the reason I've never understood reading Hegel, etc. is because so much of the conversation seems to revolve around trying to figure out what these terrible writers were saying and why -- the conversation is about the conversation, and it never touches the real world. I remember arguing with a professor about Russell's "the king of France is bald" thing, and saying, "But that's not the way it works in language." And he said, "But that's the way it works in logic," and I said, "But that's not the way it works in language," and he said, "But logic doesn't care." And I thought, well, shouldn't it? If you're having a discussion about the logic of language, then shouldn't you actually care about the actual properties and uses of language? If the only way you can make your argument is by disregarding all the ways the real world doesn't agree with it, then it's not a very strong argument. I mean, is there something I'm missing?
It just seems like all that finance stuff where there's no actual money, or mathematical physics that doesn't take into account the actual world. Yes, the emperor's clothes are very beautiful, etc. Pardon me while I buy a pair of pants that actually exist.
Reply
Reply
Consider for example the proceedings we call "games." I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all? - Don't say: "There must be something common, or they would not be called 'games'" - but look and see whether there is anything common to all. - For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don't think, but look!
Reply
Leave a comment