Ludwig Wittgenstein - Philosophical Investigations
Comments/Notes/Summary
Meaning as Use
1. Introduces reference theory of meaning via Augustine. ‘The words in language name
objects - sentences are combinations of such names’
a. then seems to illustrate this theory with an example: five red apples.
i. ‘It is in this and similar ways that one operates with
words.’ ???
ii. seems to suggest that we do not have to explain how we
know what to do with words - ‘Explanations come to an end somewhere’
iii. ‘But what is the meaning of the word “five”? - No such
thing was in question here, only how the word “five” is used.’ Meaning as use?
2. Augustine’s reference theory refers to a language more primitive than ours. Introduction
of such a language.
3. This is a system of communication, but not a complete language. It describes part of
what we call language.
4. Augustine’s conception neglects the other functions of words etc in a language.
5. Augustine’s conceptions shows us how ‘the general concept of the meaning of a word’
confuses the working of language, surrounding it ‘with a haze that makes clear vision
impossible.’
a. we need to study language in primitive uses to survey its purpose and
functioning
i. such uses are taught to children to train them, not to
explain
6. The language of (2) could be a complete language of a tribe. Part of training the
language will be pointing to the objects and then saying their names (ostensive teaching of words)
a. the trainee may come to literally picture the object when saying the
word. Is this the purpose of the word?
i. Maybe, but the purpose of the words in language (2) is
not to evoke images, though this may help attain the purpose
ii. even then, does the person understand the word?
1. maybe, but this is totally dependent on
the instruction given - with different instructions, or with the object (e.g.
a brake-lever) in a different context, there will be a different
understanding
7. The process of using words in (2) is a ‘language-game’, by which children learn their
native language
a. repeating words after a teacher is also a language-game
b. ‘I shall also call the whole, consisting of language and the activities into
which it is woven, a “language-game”.’
8. We can add to language (2) a series of letters that act as numbers, and the two words
‘there’ and ‘this’.
9. Can these words be taught ostensively?
a. numbers, maybe, at least the smaller ones
, b. ‘there’ and ‘this’: possibly, but pointing would likely occur in both the
teaching and the use of the words
10. How is what the words signify supposed to come out except in the kind of use they have?
a. so, we can describe words in the teaching, as “the word ... signifies ...”
b. this will be useful in cases of confusion of words, but only when the
trainee already has an understanding of the words, even if on that understanding ‘block’
means ‘slab’ and vice-versa
11. Despite the fact that they sound and look uniform, the functions of words are as diverse
as the functions of tools in a toolbox.
12. Example: handles in a locomotive. Look alike, but each has a different function and has
to be pulled/pushed differently.
13. Claiming that every word in the language signifies something is to say nothing
whatsoever: we must explain ‘the distinction’
a. Which distinction? The distinction between words that signify
something and words that don’t?
b. Is this because all words in ‘the’ language do signify something, or
necessarily signify something, or because all words in any language necessarily signify
something? Or some other reason?
14. W: is anything gained by classifying tools together as objects that modify different
things?
15. We can most straightforwardly apply the word ‘signify’ when the name is marked on an
object. Naming is like attaching a name tag to a thing.
16. Should we count the colour samples of (2) etc as part of the language? Cf. ‘Pronounce
the word “the”.’ The colour and the second “the” are samples, and hence tools of the language.
17. It is difficult to classify words like ‘block’, ‘slab’, ‘a’, ‘b’ etc. because classification will
vary according to inclination. Cf. classifying tools, classifying chess pieces
18. Are languages (2) and (8) incomplete because they consist only of orders?
a. no, in the same way that our language wasn’t incomplete before it
assimilated the notation of calculus, the symbolism of chemistry etc
b. our language is like ‘an ancient city: a maze of little streets and squares,
of old and new houses...and all this surrounded by a multitude of new suburbs with
straight and regular streets and uniform houses.’
i. does this mean that language is never complete; that
completeness does not apply to language as a whole?
19. ‘To imagine a language means to imagine a form of life’ - and languages with old orders,
or questions and expressions for yes/no, are imaginable.
a. is the call “Slab!” in (2) a sentence or a word?
i. if a word it cannot have the same meaning as the word
‘slab’ in our language, because in (2) it is a call
ii. if a sentence, it cannot be the elliptical sentence “Slab!”
in our language, because that sentence is short for “Bring me a slab”, and that
sentence doesn’t exist in (2).
iii. is “Bring me a slab” a lengthening of “Slab!”? When we
call out the latter we mean the former. But how do you say one and mean the
other? Do you say one to yourself as you say the other aloud?
20. We could mean “Bring me a slab” as one word corresponding to the single word “Slab!”.
But we would say it consists of four words when we use it in contrast to other statements, like
Comments/Notes/Summary
Meaning as Use
1. Introduces reference theory of meaning via Augustine. ‘The words in language name
objects - sentences are combinations of such names’
a. then seems to illustrate this theory with an example: five red apples.
i. ‘It is in this and similar ways that one operates with
words.’ ???
ii. seems to suggest that we do not have to explain how we
know what to do with words - ‘Explanations come to an end somewhere’
iii. ‘But what is the meaning of the word “five”? - No such
thing was in question here, only how the word “five” is used.’ Meaning as use?
2. Augustine’s reference theory refers to a language more primitive than ours. Introduction
of such a language.
3. This is a system of communication, but not a complete language. It describes part of
what we call language.
4. Augustine’s conception neglects the other functions of words etc in a language.
5. Augustine’s conceptions shows us how ‘the general concept of the meaning of a word’
confuses the working of language, surrounding it ‘with a haze that makes clear vision
impossible.’
a. we need to study language in primitive uses to survey its purpose and
functioning
i. such uses are taught to children to train them, not to
explain
6. The language of (2) could be a complete language of a tribe. Part of training the
language will be pointing to the objects and then saying their names (ostensive teaching of words)
a. the trainee may come to literally picture the object when saying the
word. Is this the purpose of the word?
i. Maybe, but the purpose of the words in language (2) is
not to evoke images, though this may help attain the purpose
ii. even then, does the person understand the word?
1. maybe, but this is totally dependent on
the instruction given - with different instructions, or with the object (e.g.
a brake-lever) in a different context, there will be a different
understanding
7. The process of using words in (2) is a ‘language-game’, by which children learn their
native language
a. repeating words after a teacher is also a language-game
b. ‘I shall also call the whole, consisting of language and the activities into
which it is woven, a “language-game”.’
8. We can add to language (2) a series of letters that act as numbers, and the two words
‘there’ and ‘this’.
9. Can these words be taught ostensively?
a. numbers, maybe, at least the smaller ones
, b. ‘there’ and ‘this’: possibly, but pointing would likely occur in both the
teaching and the use of the words
10. How is what the words signify supposed to come out except in the kind of use they have?
a. so, we can describe words in the teaching, as “the word ... signifies ...”
b. this will be useful in cases of confusion of words, but only when the
trainee already has an understanding of the words, even if on that understanding ‘block’
means ‘slab’ and vice-versa
11. Despite the fact that they sound and look uniform, the functions of words are as diverse
as the functions of tools in a toolbox.
12. Example: handles in a locomotive. Look alike, but each has a different function and has
to be pulled/pushed differently.
13. Claiming that every word in the language signifies something is to say nothing
whatsoever: we must explain ‘the distinction’
a. Which distinction? The distinction between words that signify
something and words that don’t?
b. Is this because all words in ‘the’ language do signify something, or
necessarily signify something, or because all words in any language necessarily signify
something? Or some other reason?
14. W: is anything gained by classifying tools together as objects that modify different
things?
15. We can most straightforwardly apply the word ‘signify’ when the name is marked on an
object. Naming is like attaching a name tag to a thing.
16. Should we count the colour samples of (2) etc as part of the language? Cf. ‘Pronounce
the word “the”.’ The colour and the second “the” are samples, and hence tools of the language.
17. It is difficult to classify words like ‘block’, ‘slab’, ‘a’, ‘b’ etc. because classification will
vary according to inclination. Cf. classifying tools, classifying chess pieces
18. Are languages (2) and (8) incomplete because they consist only of orders?
a. no, in the same way that our language wasn’t incomplete before it
assimilated the notation of calculus, the symbolism of chemistry etc
b. our language is like ‘an ancient city: a maze of little streets and squares,
of old and new houses...and all this surrounded by a multitude of new suburbs with
straight and regular streets and uniform houses.’
i. does this mean that language is never complete; that
completeness does not apply to language as a whole?
19. ‘To imagine a language means to imagine a form of life’ - and languages with old orders,
or questions and expressions for yes/no, are imaginable.
a. is the call “Slab!” in (2) a sentence or a word?
i. if a word it cannot have the same meaning as the word
‘slab’ in our language, because in (2) it is a call
ii. if a sentence, it cannot be the elliptical sentence “Slab!”
in our language, because that sentence is short for “Bring me a slab”, and that
sentence doesn’t exist in (2).
iii. is “Bring me a slab” a lengthening of “Slab!”? When we
call out the latter we mean the former. But how do you say one and mean the
other? Do you say one to yourself as you say the other aloud?
20. We could mean “Bring me a slab” as one word corresponding to the single word “Slab!”.
But we would say it consists of four words when we use it in contrast to other statements, like
