|
|
Re: post from Holloway
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Sun, 22 Oct 95 17:28:44 GMT
In article <DGuoMB.ILF@inter.NL.net>
ghanenbu@inter.nl.net "Gerrit Hanenburg" writes:
> >Yeah, if snakes could think about evolution, they might think so.
>
> Who says they can't?
> Wittgenstein wrote:"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 exept the most primitive forms of language.
> Commanding,questioning,recounting,chatting,are as much a part of our
> natural history as walking,eating,drinking,playing".
> (Philosophical Investigations,#25)
Hey, a Wittgenstein freak! If you really are, we could start a few
threads in this group. I love the man, and have not found anywhere
sensible on the net to discuss him. The PA people probably would
not mind it in here. We could put "AAT" in the title and they'd
not notice :-)
Anyway his point in PI #25, as I understand it, is to undermine the
notion of "thinking" as an unseen mental activity which is later or
separately reported, or communicated, by speech. It's part of his
whole program to destroy the Cartesian duality.
He's not saying snakes can think. He's saying that Man does not
generally, separately "think". "Thinking" is not a mental activity
that necessarily precedes commanding, questioning, recounting,
chatting, etc., etc. In a sense, all these *are* "thinking".
Roll on the AAT(Ludwig) threads!
Paul.
|