4 ms·

I don't like article titles in the form "X idea I just read about can set us free." If a thing has a benefit, tell me what it is, do not bs me about my freedom.

I don't like article titles in the form "X idea I just read about can set us free." If a thing has a benefit, tell me what it is, do not bs me about my freedom. Perhaps Understanding that words mean different things to different people, and a context and inflection which can be optimized is far from freedom. That sentence could be mined for a better title. Or any of the other proposed benefits would do better as well as a title. I don't like the presupposition that I'm not free. I also don't like the idea that employing a small subsection of Wittgenstein's philosophy would free me if I needed it. I think Shakespeare did much more for language that Wittgenstein. The artful and tactful use of language preceded Wittgenstein calling a subset of that tact "language games" I think "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" if far better than Wittgenstein's Duck/Rabbit photo. Particularly if you're talking about words and not visual perception. You could say that the lessons are slightly different, logically, but I think it shows the power of artful language locking a powerful idea into culture for hundreds of years. It seems to me that Marcuse, Wittgenstein, and Sandy Grant Could learn some things from the people who use language best. This is the final sentence of this piece: "We might first need to ‘be stupid’ if we are to see this." Beautiful prose best delivers beautiful philosophy.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
The ideas aren't "slightly different, logically" -- they're nearly diametrically opposed! Shakespeare is commenting that the essence of the thing is not connected to the social construction of its label, while Wittgenstein is contending that they're exactly that -- that a rose smells the same regardless of the construct of language employed to address it versus an image that appears to be a facsimile of different animals depending on how you address it; that Romeo has an ineffable quality that will remain sans familial ties and social perception versus the notion that Romeo is only who he is because of the social construct of "Romeo" everyone else holds. At heart, they're opposing views on the notion that syntax is semantics.
- RichardHeart 9y ago
  Shakespeare's reference is often used to imply that the names of things do not affect what they really are. -wikipedia rabbit-duck image: "In addition to ambiguous sentences, Wittgenstein discussed figures that can be seen and understood in two different ways. Often one can see something in a straightforward way — seeing that it is a rabbit, perhaps. But, at other times, one notices a particular aspect — seeing it as something. An example Wittgenstein uses is the "duckrabbit", an ambiguous image that can be seen as either a duck or a rabbit.[32] When one looks at the duck-rabbit and sees a rabbit, one is not interpreting the picture as a rabbit, but rather reporting what one sees. One just sees the picture as a rabbit. But what occurs when one sees it first as a duck, then as a rabbit? As the gnomic remarks in the Investigations indicate, Wittgenstein isn't sure. However, he is sure that it could not be the case that the external world stays the same while an 'internal' cognitive change takes place." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#Seeing_that_vs._seeing_as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#S... Shakespeare states that things are the same no matter what you call them. Wittgenstein states that things are what they are regardless of what you call them. A duck-rabbit is a duck-rabbit whether you choose to call it a duck or a rabbit. Their statements seem more similar than different to me.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago

The ideas aren't "slightly different, logically" -- they're nearly diametrically opposed! Shakespeare is commenting that the essence of the thing is not connected to the social construction of its label, while Wittgenstein is contending that they're exactly that -- that a rose smells the same regardless of the construct of language employed to address it versus an image that appears to be a facsimile of different animals depending on how you address it; that Romeo has an ineffable quality that will remain sans familial ties and social perception versus the notion that Romeo is only who he is because of the social construct of "Romeo" everyone else holds. At heart, they're opposing views on the notion that syntax is semantics.

RichardHeart 9y ago
Shakespeare's reference is often used to imply that the names of things do not affect what they really are. -wikipedia rabbit-duck image: "In addition to ambiguous sentences, Wittgenstein discussed figures that can be seen and understood in two different ways. Often one can see something in a straightforward way — seeing that it is a rabbit, perhaps. But, at other times, one notices a particular aspect — seeing it as something. An example Wittgenstein uses is the "duckrabbit", an ambiguous image that can be seen as either a duck or a rabbit.[32] When one looks at the duck-rabbit and sees a rabbit, one is not interpreting the picture as a rabbit, but rather reporting what one sees. One just sees the picture as a rabbit. But what occurs when one sees it first as a duck, then as a rabbit? As the gnomic remarks in the Investigations indicate, Wittgenstein isn't sure. However, he is sure that it could not be the case that the external world stays the same while an 'internal' cognitive change takes place." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#Seeing_that_vs._seeing_as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#S... Shakespeare states that things are the same no matter what you call them. Wittgenstein states that things are what they are regardless of what you call them. A duck-rabbit is a duck-rabbit whether you choose to call it a duck or a rabbit. Their statements seem more similar than different to me.