5,228
edits
Brown Book: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
{{parBB|37}} After playing it like this for several times, B moves about according to the written order as he would have done had he looked up or imagined the arrows, but actually without any such picture intervening. Imagine even this variation: | {{parBB|37}} After playing it like this for several times, B moves about according to the written order as he would have done had he looked up or imagined the arrows, but actually without any such picture intervening. Imagine even this variation: | ||
{{parBB|38}} B in being trained to follow a written order, is shewn the table of 33) once, upon which he obeys A's orders without further intervention of the table in the same way in which B in | {{parBB|38}} B in being trained to follow a written order, is shewn the table of 33) once, upon which he obeys A's orders without further intervention of the table in the same way in which B in {{BBB TS reference|Ts-310,31}} 33) does with the help of the table on each occasion. | ||
In each of these cases, we might say that the table 33) is a rule of the game. But in each one this rule plays a different role. In 33) the table is an instrument used in what we should call ''the practice'' of the game. It is replaced in 36) by the working of association. In 37) even this shadow of the table has dropped out of the practice of the game, and in 38) the table is admittedly an instrument for the ''training'' of B only. | |||
In each of these cases, we might say that the table 33) is a rule of the game. But in each one this rule plays a different role. In 33) the table is an instrument used in what we should call the practice of the game. It is replaced in 36) by the working of association. In 37) even this shadow of the table has dropped out of the practice of the game, and in 38) the table is admittedly an instrument for the training of B only. | |||
But imagine this further case: | But imagine this further case: | ||
{{parBB|39}} A certain system of communication is used by a tribe. I will describe it by saying that it is similar to our game 38) except that no table is used in the training. The training might have consisted in several times leading the pupil by the hand along the path one wanted him to go. But we could also imagine a case: | {{parBB|39}} A certain system of communication is used by a tribe. I will describe it by saying that it is similar to our game 38) except that no table is used in the training. The training ''might'' have consisted in several times leading the pupil by the hand along the path one wanted him to go. But we could also imagine a case: | ||
{{parBB|40}} where even this training is not necessary, where, as we should say, the look of the letters abcd naturally produced an urge to move in the way described. This cause at first sight looks puzzling. We seem to be assuming a most unusual working of the mind. Or we may ask || perhaps we ask, “How on earth is he to know which way to move if the letter ''a'' is shewn him”? But isn't B's reaction in this case the very reaction described in 37) & 38), & in fact our usual reaction when for instance we hear and obey an order? For, the fact that the training in 38) & 39) ''preceded'' the carrying out of the order does not change the process of carrying out. In other words the “curious mental mechanism” assumed in 40) is no other than that which we assumed to be {{BBB TS reference|Ts-310,32}} created by the training in 37) and 38). “But ''could'' such a mechanism be born with you?” But did you find any difficulty in assuming that ''that'' mechanism was born with B, which enabled him to respond to the training in the way he did? And remember that the rule or explanation given in table 33) of the signs abcd was not essentially the last one, and that we might have given a table for the use of such tables, and so on. (Cf. 21)). | |||
How does one explain to a man how he should carry out the order, “Go ''this'' way!” (pointing with an arrow the way he should go)? Couldn't this mean going the direction which we should call the opposite of that of the arrow? Isn't every explanation of how he should follow the arrow in the position of another arrow? What would you say to this explanation: A man says, “If I point this way (pointing with his right hand) I mean you to go like this” (pointing with his left hand the same way)? This just shews you the extremes between which the uses of signs vary. | |||
{{BBB TS reference|Ts-310,33}} law describing the behaviour of the people of this tribe. Or we might say that the table is a record belonging to the natural history of the tribe. | Let us return to 39). Someone visits the tribe and observes the use of the signs in their language. He describes the language by saying that its sentences consist of the letters abcd used according to the table: (of 33)). We see that the expression, “A game is played according to the rule so-and-so” is used not only in the variety of cases exemplified by 36), 37), & 38), but even in cases where the rule is neither an instrument of the training nor of the practice of the game, but stands in the relation to it in which our table stands to the practice of our game 39). One might in this case call the table a natural {{BBB TS reference|Ts-310,33}} law describing the behaviour of the people of this tribe. Or we might say that the table is a record belonging to the natural history of the tribe. | ||
Note that in the game 33) I distinguished sharply between the order to be carried out and the rule employed. In 34) on the other hand, we called the sentence “c a d a” a rule, & it was the order. Imagine also this variation: | Note that in the game 33) I distinguished sharply between the order to be carried out and the rule employed. In 34) on the other hand, we called the sentence “c a d a” a rule, & it was the order. Imagine also this variation: | ||
{{parBB|41}} The game is similar to 33), but the pupil is not just trained to use a single table; but the training aims at making the pupil use any table correlating letters with arrows. Now by this I mean no more than that the training is of a peculiar kind, roughly speaking one analogous to that described in 30). I will refer to a training more or less similar to that in 30) as a | {{parBB|41}} The game is similar to 33), but the pupil is not just trained to use a single table; but the training aims at making the pupil use any table correlating letters with arrows. Now by this I mean no more than that the training is of a peculiar kind, roughly speaking one analogous to that described in 30). I will refer to a training more or less similar to that in 30) as a “''general training''”. General trainings form a family whose members differ greatly from one another. The kind of thing I'm thinking of now mainly consists: ''a'') of a training in a limited range of actions, ''b'') of giving the pupil a lead to extend this range, & ''c'') of random exercises and tests. After the general training the order is now to consist in giving him a sign of this kind: | ||
rr | rr | ||
| Line 242: | Line 236: | ||
↖ | ↖ | ||
↓He carries out the order by moving thus: . Here I suppose we should say the table, the rule, is part of the order | ↓He carries out the order by moving thus: . Here I suppose we should say the table, the rule, is ''part'' of the order. | ||
Note | Note, we are not saying “''what a rule is''” but just giving different applications of the word “rule”; & we certainly do this by giving applications of the words “expression of a rule”. | ||
{{BBB TS reference|Ts-310,34}} the whole symbol given the sentence, though we might distinguish in it between the sentence and the table. What in this case more particularly tempts us to this distinction is the linear writing of the part outside the table. Though from certain points of view we should call the linear character of the sentence merely external and inessential, this character and similar ones play a great role in what as logicians we are inclined to say about sentences and propositions. And therefore if we conceive of the symbol in 41) as a unit, this may make us realise what a sentence can look like. | Note also that in 41) there is no clear case against calling {{BBB TS reference|Ts-310,34}} the whole symbol given the sentence, though we ''might'' distinguish in it between the sentence and the table. What in this case more particularly tempts us to this distinction is the linear writing of the part outside the table. Though from certain points of view we should call the linear character of the sentence merely external and inessential, this character and similar ones play a great role in what as logicians we are inclined to say about sentences and propositions. And therefore if we conceive of the symbol in 41) as a unit, this may make us realise what a sentence ''can'' look like. | ||
Let us now consider these two games: | Let us now consider these two games: | ||