The Ludwig Wittgenstein Project

Brown Book: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Brown Book (view source)

Revision as of 21:19, 6 February 2021

80 bytes removed ,  3 years ago
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 449: Line 449:
We say: A shows B a series of objects. B is to tell A whether the object is familiar to him or not. ''a'') The question may be, “Does B know what the objects are?” or ''b'') “Does he recognize the particular object?”
We say: A shows B a series of objects. B is to tell A whether the object is familiar to him or not. ''a'') The question may be, “Does B know what the objects are?” or ''b'') “Does he recognize the particular object?”


{{parBB|1}} Take the case that B is shown a series of apparatus, – a balance, a thermometer, a spectroscope, etc.
1). Take the case that B is shown a series of apparatus, – a balance, a thermometer, a spectroscope, etc.


{{parBB|2}} B is shown a pencil, a pen, an inkpot, and a pebble. Or:
2). B is shown a pencil, a pen, an inkpot, and a pebble. Or:


{{parBB|3}} Besides familiar objects he is shown an object of which he says, “That looks as though it served some purpose, but I don't know what purpose”.
3). Besides familiar objects he is shown an object of which he says, “That looks as though it served some purpose, but I don't know what purpose”.


What happens when B recognizes a pencil || something as a pencil?
What happens when B recognizes a pencil || something as a pencil?
Line 459: Line 459:
Suppose A had shown him an object looking like a stick. B handles this object, suddenly it comes apart, one of the parts being a cap, the other a pencil. B says, “Oh, this is a pencil”. He has recognized the object as a pencil.
Suppose A had shown him an object looking like a stick. B handles this object, suddenly it comes apart, one of the parts being a cap, the other a pencil. B says, “Oh, this is a pencil”. He has recognized the object as a pencil.


{{parBB|4}} We could say, “B always knew what a pencil looked like; he could e.g., have drawn one on being asked to. He didn't know that the object he was given contained a pencil which he {{BBB TS reference|Ts-310,78}} could have drawn any time”.
4). We could say, “B always knew what a pencil looked like; he could e.g., have drawn one on being asked to. He didn't know that the object he was given contained a pencil which he {{BBB TS reference|Ts-310,78}} could have drawn any time”.


Compare with this case 5).
Compare with this case 5).


{{parBB|5}} B is shewn a word written on a piece of paper held upside down. He does not recognize the word. The paper is gradually turned round until B says, “Now I see what it is. It is ‘pencil’”.
5). B is shewn a word written on a piece of paper held upside down. He does not recognize the word. The paper is gradually turned round until B says, “Now I see what it is. It is ‘pencil’”.


We might say, “He always knew what the word ‘pencil’ looked like. He did not know that the word he was shewn would when turned round look like ‘pencil’”.
We might say, “He always knew what the word ‘pencil’ looked like. He did not know that the word he was shewn would when turned round look like ‘pencil’”.
Line 469: Line 469:
In both cases 4) and 5) you might say something was hidden. But note the different application of “hidden”.
In both cases 4) and 5) you might say something was hidden. But note the different application of “hidden”.


{{parBB|6}} Compare with this: You read a letter and can't read one of its words. You guess what it must be from the context, and now can read it. You recognize this scratch as an ''e'', the second as an ''a'', the third as a ''t''. This is different from the case where the word “eat” was covered by a blotch of ink, and you only guessed that the word “eat” must have been in this place.
6). Compare with this: You read a letter and can't read one of its words. You guess what it must be from the context, and now can read it. You recognize this scratch as an ''e'', the second as an ''a'', the third as a ''t''. This is different from the case where the word “eat” was covered by a blotch of ink, and you only guessed that the word “eat” must have been in this place.


{{parBB|7}} Compare: You see a word and can't read it. Someone alters it slightly by adding a dash, lengthening a stroke, or suchlike. Now you can read it. Compare this alteration with the turning in 5), and note that there is a sense in which while the word was turned round you saw that it was ''not'' altered. I.e., there is a case in which you say, “I looked at the word while it was turned, and I know that it is the same now as it was when I didn't recognize it”.
7). Compare: You see a word and can't read it. Someone alters it slightly by adding a dash, lengthening a stroke, or suchlike. Now you can read it. Compare this alteration with the turning in 5), and note that there is a sense in which while the word was turned round you saw that it was ''not'' altered. I.e., there is a case in which you say, “I looked at the word while it was turned, and I know that it is the same now as it was when I didn't recognize it”.


{{parBB|8}} Suppose the game between A and B just consisted in this, {{BBB TS reference|Ts-310,79}} that B should say whether he knows the object or not but does not say what it is. Suppose he was shewn an ordinary pencil, after having been shewn a hygrometer which he had never seen before. On being shewn the hygrometer he said that he was not familiar with it, on being shewn the pencil, that he knew it. What happened when he recognized it? Must he have told himself, though he didn't tell A, that what he saw was a pencil? Why should we assume this?
8). Suppose the game between A and B just consisted in this, {{BBB TS reference|Ts-310,79}} that B should say whether he knows the object or not but does not say what it is. Suppose he was shewn an ordinary pencil, after having been shewn a hygrometer which he had never seen before. On being shewn the hygrometer he said that he was not familiar with it, on being shewn the pencil, that he knew it. What happened when he recognized it? Must he have told himself, though he didn't tell A, that what he saw was a pencil? Why should we assume this?


Then, when he recognized the pencil, what did he recognize it as?
Then, when he recognized the pencil, what did he recognize it as?


{{parBB|9}} Suppose even that he had said to himself, “Oh, this is a pencil”, could you compare this case with 4) or 5)? In these cases one might have said, “He recognized this as that” (pointing, e.g., for “this” to the covered up pencil and for “that” to an ordinary pencil, and similarly in 5)).
9). Suppose even that he had said to himself, “Oh, this is a pencil”, could you compare this case with 4) or 5)? In these cases one might have said, “He recognized this as that” (pointing, e.g., for “this” to the covered up pencil and for “that” to an ordinary pencil, and similarly in 5)).


In 8) the pencil underwent no change and the words, “Oh, this is a pencil” did not refer to a paradigm, the similarity of which with the pencil shewn B had recognized.
In 8) the pencil underwent no change and the words, “Oh, this is a pencil” did not refer to a paradigm, the similarity of which with the pencil shewn B had recognized.
Line 485: Line 485:
“But when he said, ‘Oh, this is a pencil’, how did he know that it was if he didn't recognize it as something?” – This really comes to saying, “How did he recognize ‘pencil’ as the name of this sort of thing?” Well, how did he recognize it? He just reacted in this particular way by saying this word.
“But when he said, ‘Oh, this is a pencil’, how did he know that it was if he didn't recognize it as something?” – This really comes to saying, “How did he recognize ‘pencil’ as the name of this sort of thing?” Well, how did he recognize it? He just reacted in this particular way by saying this word.


{{parBB|10}} Suppose someone shews you colours and asks you to name {{BBB TS reference|Ts-310,80}} them. Pointing to a certain object you say, “This is red”. What would you answer if you were asked, “How do you know that this is red?”?
10). Suppose someone shews you colours and asks you to name {{BBB TS reference|Ts-310,80}} them. Pointing to a certain object you say, “This is red”. What would you answer if you were asked, “How do you know that this is red?”?


Of course there is the case in which a general explanation was given to B, say, “We shall call ‘pencil’ anything that one can easily write with on a wax tablet”. Then A shews B amongst other objects a small pointed object, and B says, “Oh, this is a pencil”, after having thought, “One could write with this quite easily”. In this case, we may say, ''a derivation'' takes place. In 8), 9), 10) there is no derivation. In 4) we might say that B derived that the object shewn to him was a pencil by means of a paradigm, or else no such derivation might have taken place.
Of course there is the case in which a general explanation was given to B, say, “We shall call ‘pencil’ anything that one can easily write with on a wax tablet”. Then A shews B amongst other objects a small pointed object, and B says, “Oh, this is a pencil”, after having thought, “One could write with this quite easily”. In this case, we may say, ''a derivation'' takes place. In 8), 9), 10) there is no derivation. In 4) we might say that B derived that the object shewn to him was a pencil by means of a paradigm, or else no such derivation might have taken place.
Retrieved from "https://www.wittgensteinproject.org/w/index.php/Special:MobileDiff/772"