The proposition that "it is sunny in Campbellsville today" can only be known a posteriori. The proposition that "it's either sunny or not sunny in Campbellsville today" can be known a priori. A proposition is something that can be either accepted or rejected. Inference is drawing a conclusion. There are three kinds of inference (conclusion drawing) There's a deduction, reaching a conclusion you can be certain of because it's generally thought to be true. There's an induction, which is moving from a more certain conclusion to reach broader possible conclusions. And there's abduction, an A for effort, when you search around for the best or most likely conclusion and run away with it in sometimes ironic manner, as in "there's a big dark cloud over Campbellsville, it's bound to be raining there."
Wittgenstein's later thinking produced the idea of context, ie things, ideas, thoughts, words don't exist in isolation, they come in clouds, weather systems, each one different, almost like games with the odd other imposed rule. The only certainty he put into these language games was the suggestion that the function of propositions was, "to serve as a kind of framework within which empirical propositions can make sense."
Of interest, Wittgenstein was a very picky, argumentative sort of Austrian, who liked a real world of experience, not a cloistered one.
In my view - a view more accurately judged as a field of uncertainty - Wittgenstein had no wish to put certainty and language into the same sentence. For him logic was to have nothing to do with language. Logic as a form was not suited to the vague and wish-washy, ever changing symbols of language.
Thanks to an English mathematician called George Boole, the hope for certainty was given its own un-nuanced symbols in what is called Boolean Algebra or Symbolic Logic. Men and woman took their search for the convictions in certainty they'd hoped to find in langauage to and started playing around with the first computer languages which began to profitably mature in the 1950's.
Wittgenstein went on to argue that Language was rooted in experience. He suggested that if even if a Lion could miraculously speak we people would never understand what the Lion was saying and the Lion would never underatand what we were saying.
So here we are, our clever dicks back in their college dorms, Beaky hats, beer bongs, exploring genitalia, entitled gods and goddesses, oh what fun and all of them teasing Wittgenstein for being woke.
"Ludwig was a conservative mystic at heart, Comrade. He didn't believe you could use a centralized committee or a public relations campaign to 'fix' humanity by changing the words. He knew that when you try to smooth out the rough ground of language to make it perfectly efficient and un-offensive, you lose the friction that allows you to walk. He wrote: 'We have got onto slippery ice where there is no friction and so in a certain sense the conditions are ideal, but also, just because of that, we are unable to walk. We want to walk: so we need friction. Back to the rough ground!'"
Proposition 1 -The Right uses Critical Race Theory as a bogeyman to convince the conservative base that their ancestral sandbags are being blown up by a foreign invader. - Which is true.
Proposition 2 -The Left uses the administrative code to weaponize vocabulary, turning language into a tool for professional-class advancement while leaving the actual economic structures of the empire completely untouched. - Which is also true
Dictionaries might not thinks so but you can’t determine meaning by decree. You can write all the guidelines you want, the real world will always reintroduce the friction of ordinary people living face-to-face in a random place.
No comments:
Post a Comment