Professional Documents
Culture Documents
We speak literally when we say thinking takes place on paper or in the mouth, but we speak metaphorically when we say thinking takes place in the head. Wittgenstein
for most people the individual just walks over to the meadow
and picks the flower without comparing it to anything. It appears that in this simple but yet powerful argument
exact red in question or for that matter the correct flower specie
configuration? Our mental copy is not reliable and could not justify a proper symbolic representation. So then, what else is at work here? Might we not, just act? Is it necessary that we believe in a long held belief that a mental act of thinking occurred prior to selecting the flower? Even if we did just act, could we not have just substituted the color chart in its place?
WE JUST ACT
He goes on to point out that the mental process of thinking can be partly avoided with the act of looking at real objects. He notes that a person may say that the mental act of association would be more preferable then to have to carry
P1: Explain? Well, what is there to explain? I see the color red, plain
and simple. I have a mental picture of the color red, I think I know what it looks like. P2: Fine, Ill grant you that. However, how do I know that your concept of red is like my concept of red?
this chair looks like. Because if your going to use the word know then
there must be doubt. How can I doubt the existence of this chair without any certifiable criteria? Youve essentially bankrupted the meaning of the word know when used in this context. P1: Well, I know what I know and just cause you cant doubt it in the context of science doesnt mean that I cant have knowledge of this mental thought.
relationship is concerned.
Can you see the connection between thinking and knowledge or is that just something weve become accustomed to
believing
Where does the the concept and beliefs associated with the
mind lie in this web of belief?
NOTES
Author Phil Hutchinson believes that this is not necessarily the case. So, did W actually propose any real views on thinking. We often attribute thinking and understanding to be the same thing. However they are grammatically different.
NOTES
unaware of this
We have this craving for generality. We want to so badly theorize an inner mental process model. However, not all substantives must correspond to things The key is to go from the unconscious to the conscious We are in the grip of a particular picture, deep in our unconscious. This leads to us craving for generality or general theorizing.
NOTES
bewitchment..
Wittgenstein wants to treat this mental malady that keeps us in a vice like grip. The is that we assume This craving for generality causes us to overlook what is essential. Substantives must not always correspond to things. There is only family resemblance.
NOTES
Therefore, when we cant show how the mind or for that matter thinking occurs we posit that these substantives MUST correspond to: processes, states, things, quasi-hypothetical things. We often assume that thinking and understanding correspond to some type of process
NOTES
We always point to some process and make mere assumptions. Wittgenstein was no behaviorist Wittgenstein believed that cognitivist and behaviorist were equally confused concerning the matter of mental processes. We unconsciously assume that mental processes are akin to
Wittgenstein believed that cognitivist and behaviorist must be held accountable for their interpretation of the term process