Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wittgenstein’s Legacy: The Principles of the Private Language Arguments (2018)

doi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Wittgenstein’s Legacy: The Principles of the Private Language Arguments (2018)

#51

Post by coldtea »

tuesdayrain wrote: post #7
tlb wrote: post #4

When I first read about Wittgenstein in some junior encyclopedia, it said that he discovered that many problems in philosophy were meaningless because words might mean different things. I imagined he was talking about words like "socialism" or "equality" -- words that are obviously slippery. But it turns out that words like "is" and "have" cause just as much trouble. Wittgenstein is famously hard to read. I have the…

> When I first read about Wittgenstein in some junior encyclopedia, it said that he discovered that many problems in philosophy were meaningless because words might mean different things. That's how I've always intuitively felt about the Ship of Theseus thought experiment. It only seems paradoxical when people try to apply imprecise language to a precise situation. The way I see it, it's technically a new ship with e…

>The way I see it, it's technically a new ship with every part that gets replaced. Nothing unusual about it.

That's still unusual because we don't consider a house a "new house" if we replace the door or rebuild a wall or whatever. We don't consider a person a new person when we e.g. give them an artificial leg. We also never consider a ship a "new ship" when we replace a part of the ship. Not instinctively, not casually, and nor "technically" (e.g. as far as the law is concerned).

So not sure why you think there's "nothing unusual about it", and what's your solution. You merely picked a side to a two-sided paradox, you didn't solve it...

Re: Wittgenstein’s Legacy: The Principles of the Private Language Arguments (2018)

#52

Post by coldtea »

goatlover wrote: post #14
tuesdayrain wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I first read about Wittgenstein in some junior encyclopedia, it said that he discovered that many problems in philosophy were meaningless because words might mean different things. That's how I've always intuitively felt about the Ship of Theseus thought experiment. It only seems paradoxical when people try to apply imprecise language to a precise situation. The way I see it, it's technically a new ship with e…

It's unusual because our ordinary language does not talk about objects being new with every change. The ship that sets sails is supposed to be the same ship that returns. And yet change is part of life. Everything undergoes change, as Heraclitus noted a long time ago. So why do we talk so imprecisely about objects as if they have permanence? Why is it the same river the next time we step in it?

>So why do we talk so imprecisely about objects as if they have permanence? Why is it the same river the next time we step in it?

Because the concept of river describes a body of water in flow starting from and passing through specific geographical locations.

Those all remain, even if the water at any point X of the river changes...

Re: Wittgenstein’s Legacy: The Principles of the Private Language Arguments (2018)

#53

Post by goatlover »

coldtea wrote: post #52
goatlover wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unusual because our ordinary language does not talk about objects being new with every change. The ship that sets sails is supposed to be the same ship that returns. And yet change is part of life. Everything undergoes change, as Heraclitus noted a long time ago. So why do we talk so imprecisely about objects as if they have permanence? Why is it the same river the next time we step in it?

> So why do we talk so imprecisely about objects as if they have permanence? Why is it the same river the next time we step in it? Because the concept of river describes a body of water in flow starting from and passing through specific geographical locations. Those all remain, even if the water at any point X of the river changes...

Those all undergo change as well. In context of the parent, any change whatsoever results in a new object. Which was the point of Heraclitus not being able to step in the same river twice. It's all flux.

That's what motivated Plato and Kant to come up with their philosophical responses to the flux. One with eternal forms and the other with categories of thought.

Re: Wittgenstein’s Legacy: The Principles of the Private Language Arguments (2018)

#54

Post by coldtea »

goatlover wrote: post #53
coldtea wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So why do we talk so imprecisely about objects as if they have permanence? Why is it the same river the next time we step in it? Because the concept of river describes a body of water in flow starting from and passing through specific geographical locations. Those all remain, even if the water at any point X of the river changes...

Those all undergo change as well. In context of the parent, any change whatsoever results in a new object. Which was the point of Heraclitus not being able to step in the same river twice. It's all flux. That's what motivated Plato and Kant to come up with their philosophical responses to the flux. One with eternal forms and the other with categories of thought.

>Those all undergo change as well

And we are free to disregard small changes, like we do everywhere.

I'm aware of Heraclitus' thought (and other pre-socratics, Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hegel, and many others besides) but it's not a binding observation (that one should fell compelled to respond by resolving some great paradox).

"Yeah, the river undergoes small changes all the time, and bigger changes from time to time. Still enough remains common for us that we still don't care and will call it by the same name, what are you gonna do about it?" is a nice common sense response...

Re: Wittgenstein’s Legacy: The Principles of the Private Language Arguments (2018)

#55

Post by inimino »

codeulike wrote: post #44
inimino wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But useful tools are built on fundamentals by way of insights.

I disagree. Tools are just based on what is possible and what seems to work. No deep understanding is necessary. Text messages turned out to be a great tool, created more or less by accident and intended for a completely different purpose. Twitter is something no-one asked for, but it changed the very landscape of mass communication. Its more like a tool that has shaped the world around it. Wikipedia is a fantastic t…

Your opinion of what an insight is is much too narrow.

Re: Wittgenstein’s Legacy: The Principles of the Private Language Arguments (2018)

#56

Post by chernov »

ZoomZoomZoom wrote: post #48
chernov wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One may argue you are a different person even once some of your cells are replaced. I imagine your next question might be whether you owe something to now-me if you were to take a loan from a previous-me. This looks like a pair of mirror bugs. Yeah, the person is already a new one, but if we'd really treat them that way, we'd have to make our laws and morals even more complex. Instead, we just pretend that's the same…

So, one grain of sand is a heap? If one cell is enough, than one atom is enough and so on. Then, nothing's really the same. But we use this notion because it's convenient, so we're back at the beginning.

>So, one grain of sand is a heap?

"Is a single grain a heap" doesn't look like a paradox to me. A "heap" is just a word with an ambiguous definition. Once you define it, you'll have your answer :)

>Then, nothing's really the same

If that was the case, intelligence would've been impossible. We need similarities as well as the differences to be able to compare things (including abstract concepts)

Re: Wittgenstein’s Legacy: The Principles of the Private Language Arguments (2018)

#57

Post by shoes_for_thee »

chernov wrote: post #36
shoes_for_thee wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you technically a different person when your every cell is replaced?

One may argue you are a different person even once some of your cells are replaced. I imagine your next question might be whether you owe something to now-me if you were to take a loan from a previous-me. This looks like a pair of mirror bugs. Yeah, the person is already a new one, but if we'd really treat them that way, we'd have to make our laws and morals even more complex. Instead, we just pretend that's the same…

These are excellent, very much open questions.

I mostly wanted to point to the parent comment and say, "Things are not quite so pat." I should have explicitly said so.

Sometimes I think paradoxes exist to teach us that many things are not precisely true or false.

Re: Wittgenstein’s Legacy: The Principles of the Private Language Arguments (2018)

#58

Post by goatlover »

coldtea wrote: post #54
goatlover wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those all undergo change as well. In context of the parent, any change whatsoever results in a new object. Which was the point of Heraclitus not being able to step in the same river twice. It's all flux. That's what motivated Plato and Kant to come up with their philosophical responses to the flux. One with eternal forms and the other with categories of thought.

> Those all undergo change as well And we are free to disregard small changes, like we do everywhere. I'm aware of Heraclitus' thought (and other pre-socratics, Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hegel, and many others besides) but it's not a binding observation (that one should fell compelled to respond by resolving some great paradox). "Yeah, the river undergoes small changes all the time, and bigger changes from time to time…

Right, but the paradox is that a bunch of inconsequential changes lead to major changes over time, such as the ship being replaced plank by plank until it has none of the original material.
Post reply on HN