《哲学研究》讨论贴 第五周[讨论]

宇文光

21.    Imagine a language-game in which A asks and
B reports the number of slabs or blocks in a pile,
or the colours and shapes of the building-stones
that are stacked in such-and-such a place.---
Such a report might run: "Five slabs". Now what is
the difference between the report or statement
"Five slabs" and the order "Five slabs!"?---

Well, it is the part which uttering these words
plays in the language-game.

No doubt the tone of voice and the look with which
they are uttered, and much else besides, will also
be different. But we could also imagine the tone\'s
being the same---for an order and a report can be
spoken in a variety of tones of voice and with
various expressions of face---the difference being
only in the application. (Of course, we might use
the words "statement" and "command" to stand for
grammatical forms of sentence and intonations; we
do in fact call "Isn\'t the weather glorious
to-day?" a question, although it is used as a
statement.) We could imagine a language in which
all statements had the form and tone of rhetorical
questions; or every command the form of the
question "Would you like to. . .?". Perhaps it
will then be said: "What he says has the form of a
question but is really a command",---that is, has
the function of a command in the technique of
using the language. (Similarly one says "You will
do this" not as a prophecy but as a command. What
makes it the one or the other?)

22.  Frege\'s idea that every assertion contains an
assumption, which is the thing that is asserted,
really rests on the possibility found in our
language of writing every statement in the form:
"It is assert that such-and-such is the case."---
But "that such-and-such is the case" is not a
sentence in our language---so far it is not a move
in the language-game. And if I write, not "It is
asserted that . . . .", but "It is asserted:
such-and-such is the case", the words "It is
asserted" simply become superfluous.

We might very well also write every statement in
the form of a question followed by a "Yes"; for
instance: "Is it raining? Yes!" Would this shew
that every statement contained a question?

Of course we have the right to use an assertion
sign in contrast with a question-mark, for
example, or if we want to distinguish an assertion
from a fiction or a supposition. It is only a
mistake if one thinks that the assertion consists
of two actions, entertaining and asserting
(assigning the truth-value, or something of the
kind), and that in performing these actions we
follow the prepositional sign roughly as we sing
from the musical score. Reading the written
sentence loud or soft is indeed comparable with
singing from a musical score, but \'meaning\'
(thinking) the sentence that is read is not.

Frege\'s assertion sign marks the beginning of the
sentence. Thus its function is like that of
full-stop. It distinguishes the whole period from
a clause within the period. If I hear someone say
"it\'s raining" but do not know whether I have
heard the beginning and the end of the period, so
far this sentence does not serve to tell me
anything.


23.   But how many kinds of sentence are there?
Say assertion, question, and command?--- There are
countless kinds: countless different kinds of use
of what we call "symbols", "words", "sentences".
And this multiplicity is not something fixed,
given once for all; but new types of language, new
language-
games, as we may say, come into existence, and
others become obsolete and get forgotten. (We can
get a rough picture of this from the changes in
mathematics.)

Here the term "language-game" is meant to bring
into prominence the fact that the speaking of
language is part of an activity, or of a form of
life.

Review the multiplicity of language-game in the
following examples, and in others:

* Giving orders, and obeying them---
* Describing the appearance of an object, or
   giving its measurements---
* Constructing an object from a description (a
   drawing)---
* Reporting an event---
* Speculating about an event---
* Forming and testing a hypothesis---
* Presenting the results of an experiment in
   tables and diagrams---
* Making up a story; and reading it---
* Play-acting---
* Singing catches---
* Guessing riddles---
* Making a joke; telling it---
* Solving a problem in practical arithmetic---
* Translating from one language into another---
* Asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying.
    ---It is interesting to compare the
multiplicity of the tools in language and of the
ways they are used, the multiplicity of kinds of
word and sentence, with what logicians have said
about the structure of language.( Including the
author of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.)


24.    If you do not keep the multiplicity of
language-games in view you will perhaps be
inclined to ask questions like: "What is a
question?"---Is it the statement that I do not
know such-and-such, or the statement that I wish
the other person would tell me. . . .? Or is it
the description of my mental state of
uncertainty?---And is the cry "Help!" such a
description?

Think how many different kinds of thing are called
"description": description of a body\'s
position by means of its co-ordinates; description
of a facial expression; description of a sensation
of touch; of a mood.

Of course it is possible to substitute the form of
statement or description for the usual form of
question: " I want to know whether . . . ." or "I
am in doubt whether . . . ."---but this does not
bring the different language-games any closer
together.

The significance of such possibilities of
transformation, for example of turning all
statements into sentences beginning "I think" or
"I believe" (and thus, as it were, into
descriptions of my inner life) will become clearer
in another place. ( Solipsism.)


25.    It is sometimes said that animals do not
talk because they lack the mental capacity. And
this  means: "they do not think, and that is why
they do not talk." But---they simply do not talk.
Or to put it better: they do not use language---if
we except the most primitive forms of language.---
Commanding, questioning, recounting, chatting, are
as much a part of our natural history as walking,
eating, drinking, playing.

奇平

追踪一下21——25思路的演进和思维模式：
21.语言游戏
   A 1.报告（report）或者陈述（Statement ）和命令（order）之间有何区别；
      2.区别在于语调和表情
      3.想象语调和表情相同的情况下，区别则仅仅在于应用的场合
   B 1.想象一种语言其中所有的陈述和命令都具有问话的形式和语调
      2.“你是否愿意...？”（"Would you like to. . .?".）——有人会认为它是一个问句，有
        人会认为它是一道命令；或者“你将要这样做..”（"You will do this"）——有人会认
        为它是一 个预言，有人会认为它是一道命令
      3.是什么使它成为问句或者命令，预言或者命令？

22.断言（包含着假定作为被判定的东西）
    1.依据的是我们的的语言中存在的可能性——陈述的不同表述和表现形式，每个陈述都
      包含着一个问题
    2.有理由使用一种断言记号，将其与问号，虚构或者假定相区别
    3.断定记号强调了语句的开始，作用就像句号；区别整个圆周句同它的一个子句
    4.交流手段是当已经听到了一个圆周句的开始和结束的时候才真正有效

23.语言游戏的多样性
   1.“语言游戏‘一词的用意在于突出下列事实：语言的述说乃是一种活动，或者是一种生
     活形式的一个部分
   2.语言中的工具以及其使用方式的多样性，词和句的种类的多样性
   3.将多样性和逻辑学家们谈论的有关语言结构的东西进行比较，是很有趣的
    （维在23里面提出了”语言游戏的多样性“的概念，解决了前面提及的一系列问题，并且
     提 出“语言的述说乃是一种活动，或者是一种生活形式的一个部分”，从而和传统哲
     学，逻辑实 证主义区别割裂开来，返回到日常语言哲学的层面上来。《哲学研究》从
     这里开始，明确地对 传统哲学展开了批判，并且也对其前期的哲学展开批判，决裂——“...同逻辑学家们 （包括《逻辑哲学论》的作者所谈论的有关语言结构的东西进行比较，那是很有趣的。”（It  is interesting to compare the multiplicity of the tools in language and of the ways they  are used, the multiplicity of kinds of word and sentence, with what logicians have said  about the structure of language.( Including the  author of the Tractatus Logico——  Philosophicus.) 。他放弃了前期的语言与世界具有相同的逻辑结构、是世界的图象的基本 观点，认为语言只是一种工具，它的意义在于它的用法。各种概念并没有固定的意义，只有一种“家族类似”的关系。正如游戏一样，如果要寻找游戏的共同本质，那是徒劳的。因为各种不同的游戏之间只有类似性，没有共同性。传统哲学之所以陷入混乱，病源就在于不了解语言的这种特性，因而犯了误用语言的错误。）

24.陈述和描述
   1.陈述
   2.描述
   3.“你当然可以用陈述或者描述的形式来代替问句通常所采取的形式....——但是，这丝毫没有
      使不同的语言游戏更接近一些。”
   4.“变换形式的可能性，所具有的意义在另一个地方回变得更加清楚。（唯我主义）”

25.“命令、提问、叙述、聊天如同走路、吃、喝、游玩一样，是我们的自然史的一部分。”
    （马尔康姆说：维特根斯坦有一句名言当时深深打动了我，现在依旧如此，它特别
    值得注意，而且在很大程度上它是对维特根斯坦的哲学的总结，这句话就是’一种表述
    只有在生活之流中才有意义。“）

   作这样的梳理是否行得通，还请各位给把把脉！

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-8-31 15:04:21编辑过]

疯人院逃犯

不仅是“才有意义”而且是“才能确定其有怎样的意义”？

leon

欢迎奇平兄弟加盟！[em48]

奇平

暑假没法上网，来晚了！
和各位一一握手！！！[em48]

奇平

以下是引用疯人院逃犯在2004-8-31 16:39:15的发言：
不仅是“才有意义”而且是“才能确定其有怎样的意义”？

“才有意义“是就”用法即意义”而言
“才能确定其有怎样的意义”应该是就维在3中所说的“对于这个狭窄地限定了的范围而言，不是对于你所声称的全部东西而言”而言

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-9-1 10:03:55编辑过]

王晨

马尔康姆说什么关维特跟斯谈什么事？他说什么管你的理解什么事？是你读又不是他读，你是读维又不是读他，真是！！

奇平

读维的时候刚好读到了这句话，顺便用一下，不关任何人的事~~~

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-8-31 22:06:49编辑过]

疯人院逃犯

发言:1.语句的分类并不是整齐划一的.可能根据使用,根据语调或者根据语法形式.比如"问句"就没有一个非此即彼的标准,或者说问句并没有一个"本质".被我们称为"问句"的对象有种家族相似性,在使用方面相同但在语调方面不同,在语法形式方面相同但在使用方面不同等等.
2.句子的种类无数?这很难接受.但他谈的是一种可能性.黑尔的<<道德语言>>中认为,"A是好的"这样的语句,既有评判的意义也有描述的意义.我想如果采取机械的方式可以构造一些特别的种类出来,比如我们约定:当描述某个人的行为时,如果加上X,就表示赞许这个行为,如果再加上一个X就表示要用行动支持这个行为,如果再多加一个X,那么就表示要求其他人也赞同这个行为.那么比如"XXXA把公司告上了法庭"就不能被简单归类.但你也可以说这是个复合句.那只是因为它不是浑然天成的缘故.
3.关于24最后一段可以参照贝克莱的理论考虑.
4.动物不说话,也不具有人的生活形式.这其实是一回事.

宇文光

奇平：22里，维是反对像Frege那样引入句根和断言记号的