4 ms·

Those attracted to Wittgenstein's later thought like Philosophical Investigations would likely appreciate a lesser known philosopher's thought, that of R. G. Co

Those attracted to Wittgenstein's later thought like Philosophical Investigations would likely appreciate a lesser known philosopher's thought, that of R. G. Collingwood, too. I'm not alone in finding similarities (not plagiarism) in those two. A good, short introductory article on Collingwood is here: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/philosophy/39183/how-the-untimely-death-of-rg-collingwood-changed-the-course-of-philosophy-forever https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/philosophy/39183/ho... And a quote from one of his books that reminds me of the private language argument: " This might seem to presuppose community of language between the speaker and hearer; for unless they were accustomed to use the same words, the hearer in using them to himself would not mean the same thing by them. But community of language is not another situation independent of the situation we have been describing, and prior to it: it is one name by which we refer to that situation itself. One does not first acquire a language and then use it. To possess it and to use it are the same. We only come to possess it by repeatedly and progressively attempting to use it. "The reader may object that if what is here maintained were true there could never be any absolute assurance, either for the hearer or for the speaker, that the one had understood the other. That is so; but in fact there is no such assurance. The only assurance we possess is an empirical and relative assurance, becoming progressively stronger as conversation proceeds, and based on the fact that neither party seems to the other to be talking nonsense. The question whether they understand each other solvitur interloquendo. If they understand each other well enough to go on talking, they understand each other as well as they need; and there is no better kind of understanding which they can regret not having attained." I find Collingwood to have more helpful insights for language and communication in general than Wittgenstein, because language as Collingwood explains it includes bodily gestures and, although he doesn't by any means neglect the spoken and written word (which are still important to him), he emphasises the importance of other types of language too. For example, to pull another quote: "Vocal language is thus only one among many possible languages or orders of languages. Any of these might, by a particular civilization, be developed into a highly organized form of emotional expression. It is sometimes fancied that although any one of these languages might express emotion, vocal language has an exclusive, or at least a pre-eminent, function in the expression of thought. Even if this were true, it would not be of interest at the present stage in our discussion, for we are now dealing with language as it is before being adapted to serve the purposes of thought. As a matter of fact, it is probably not true. There is a story that Buddha once, at the climax of a philosophical discussion, broke into gesture-language as an Oxford philosopher may break into Greek: he took a flower in his hand, and looked at it; one of his disciples smiled, and the master said to him, ‘You have understood me.’" (Both quotes taken from The Principles of Art, where his main discussion of language is.)

padjo 3y ago
Kind of implies that the whole “if a lion could speak…” thing is bunk. I can understand my cats non verbal communication pretty well.
- mnkv 3y ago
  You understand some of what your cats mean because you learned it using the same language games Wittgenstein describes. Also they co-evolved to work with us. But just because you understand three moods of your cat, doesn't mean you would understand their language (if they had one). In fact, it is well studied that cats communicate differently with other cats than with humans. Sidenote: grouping together non-verbal communication and language fails to take into account the richness of language.
- zogrodea 3y ago
  I think Collingwood would defend (at least a qualification of) that statement of Wittgenstein's if asked about it. He readily admits that some communication between humans and other creatures is possible, but he thinks human languages tend to be somewhat incompatible with each other: "the assimilation of one kind of experience to another goes smoothly for a time, but sooner or later a break comes, as when we try to represent one kind of curve by means of another" (the unstated premise in this quote being that different cultures have developed different languages, each expressing the emotions common to that particular culture). If true, it's likely that one would hit a communication barrier with a lion much soner. [0] "This ‘sympathy’ [= the kind of phonemonon when panic would spread non-verbally through a crowd] (the simplest and best name for the contagion I have described) exists visibly among animals other than man, and between animals of different species; notably, for example, between man and his domestic animals. A dog will snap at a man because it is afraid of him; and the best way to make a dog bite you is to feel frightened of it. However successfully you think you are concealing your nervousness, the dog feels it; or rather he feels the nervousness in himself which he has thus caught from you."
beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
> I find Collingwood to have more helpful insights for language and communication in general than Wittgenstein, because language as Collingwood explains it includes bodily gestures and, although he doesn't by any means neglect the spoken and written word (which are still important to him), he emphasizes the importance of other types of language too. I'm a big fan of Collingwood as well, but did want to clarify that Wittgenstein also discusses and included body language and gesture in his writings. For instance, he wrote quite a bit about pain and emotion and links those to his own ideas on language. At the most basic level, Wittgenstein argued that language was behavior after all. > There is a story that Buddha once, at the climax of a philosophical discussion, broke into gesture-language as an Oxford philosopher may break into Greek: he took a flower in his hand, and looked at it; one of his disciples smiled, and the master said to him, ‘You have understood me.’ There's even a anecdote about Wittgenstein that is similar and was, at least according to the anecdote, very influential towards his work in PI. Wittgenstein was talking with Italian economist Piero Sraffa and discussing some of his work on language. Wittgenstein wanted to ground the entirety of language in a question of logical form. Like in TLP, at this time he was still a disciple of the picture-idea of language where "a proposition is a picture of reality". Sraffa made a gesture, that a lot of Italians will know as meaning something like disgust or contempt, of brushing the underneath of his chin with an outward sweep of the finger-tips of one hand. And he asked: “What is the logical form of that?” This form of body language was a revelation to Wittgenstein who quickly thereafter left his picture theory of language.

padjo 3y ago

Kind of implies that the whole “if a lion could speak…” thing is bunk. I can understand my cats non verbal communication pretty well.

mnkv 3y ago
You understand some of what your cats mean because you learned it using the same language games Wittgenstein describes. Also they co-evolved to work with us. But just because you understand three moods of your cat, doesn't mean you would understand their language (if they had one). In fact, it is well studied that cats communicate differently with other cats than with humans. Sidenote: grouping together non-verbal communication and language fails to take into account the richness of language.
zogrodea 3y ago
I think Collingwood would defend (at least a qualification of) that statement of Wittgenstein's if asked about it. He readily admits that some communication between humans and other creatures is possible, but he thinks human languages tend to be somewhat incompatible with each other: "the assimilation of one kind of experience to another goes smoothly for a time, but sooner or later a break comes, as when we try to represent one kind of curve by means of another" (the unstated premise in this quote being that different cultures have developed different languages, each expressing the emotions common to that particular culture). If true, it's likely that one would hit a communication barrier with a lion much soner. [0] "This ‘sympathy’ [= the kind of phonemonon when panic would spread non-verbally through a crowd] (the simplest and best name for the contagion I have described) exists visibly among animals other than man, and between animals of different species; notably, for example, between man and his domestic animals. A dog will snap at a man because it is afraid of him; and the best way to make a dog bite you is to feel frightened of it. However successfully you think you are concealing your nervousness, the dog feels it; or rather he feels the nervousness in himself which he has thus caught from you."

beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago

> I find Collingwood to have more helpful insights for language and communication in general than Wittgenstein, because language as Collingwood explains it includes bodily gestures and, although he doesn't by any means neglect the spoken and written word (which are still important to him), he emphasizes the importance of other types of language too. I'm a big fan of Collingwood as well, but did want to clarify that Wittgenstein also discusses and included body language and gesture in his writings. For instance, he wrote quite a bit about pain and emotion and links those to his own ideas on language. At the most basic level, Wittgenstein argued that language was behavior after all. > There is a story that Buddha once, at the climax of a philosophical discussion, broke into gesture-language as an Oxford philosopher may break into Greek: he took a flower in his hand, and looked at it; one of his disciples smiled, and the master said to him, ‘You have understood me.’ There's even a anecdote about Wittgenstein that is similar and was, at least according to the anecdote, very influential towards his work in PI. Wittgenstein was talking with Italian economist Piero Sraffa and discussing some of his work on language. Wittgenstein wanted to ground the entirety of language in a question of logical form. Like in TLP, at this time he was still a disciple of the picture-idea of language where "a proposition is a picture of reality". Sraffa made a gesture, that a lot of Italians will know as meaning something like disgust or contempt, of brushing the underneath of his chin with an outward sweep of the finger-tips of one hand. And he asked: “What is the logical form of that?” This form of body language was a revelation to Wittgenstein who quickly thereafter left his picture theory of language.