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 ambig

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.