The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:08 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Wittgenstein
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:57 pm 
Opinions?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:13 pm 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
How do you define "opinions"?

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wittgenstein
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:40 pm 
gwalla wrote:
Opinions?


People who create stupid threads with no introduction or apparent purpose need to be drugged out and shot.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wittgenstein
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:59 pm 
Pi wrote:
gwalla wrote:
Opinions?


People who create stupid threads with no introduction or apparent purpose need to be drugged out and shot.


The purpose is to discuss what you think of Wittgenstein, obviously!

Besides, I have a rep to maintain.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:33 pm 
How do you define "rep"?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:34 pm 
Wittgenstein?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:58 pm 
This one, I'd presume:

Wittgenstein, Ludwig
(1889–1951) Austrian philosopher. His masterwork, Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1921), influenced logical positivism, arguing the strict relationships between language and the physical world. After 1929, he criticized this hypothesis in his Cambridge lectures, published posthumously as Philosophical Investigations (1953). He claimed language was a conventional ‘game’, where meaning was affected more by context than formal relationships to reality.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:36 am 
The Clueless One wrote:
This one, I'd presume:

Wittgenstein, Ludwig
(1889–1951) Austrian philosopher. His masterwork, Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1921), influenced logical positivism, arguing the strict relationships between language and the physical world. After 1929, he criticized this hypothesis in his Cambridge lectures, published posthumously as Philosophical Investigations (1953). He claimed language was a conventional ‘game’, where meaning was affected more by context than formal relationships to reality.


And with this, we prove the entire theory.

The word "Wittgenstein" is:
1. Probably not his name. He was Austrian. "Wittgenstein" is the transliteration of the sound of his Austrian name into English, which is the language we are using here.
2. Meaningless to most of the people who entered the thread until they were given the rules of the game: the reality that there was a person recognized as "Wittgenstein" existed before "The Clueless One" demonstrated that his self-appointed description is a falsehood: however, until he did so, the rest of us could not recognize the context, or play the game.
3. Was also the Anglicanized name of his father, and his brother, and his grandfather, and his son (assuming he had at least one of each), but by the rules of the "game", we would know that the conversation was not supposed to be about them, but rather, this particular Wittgenstein.

The reality of people called Wittgenstein, and their achievements, is reality. However, without the context and rules of the game, using language to describe or discuss them is impossible. Therefore, language is a contextual game.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 9:28 am 
Offline
Concession Worker
Concession Worker
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 5:26 pm
Posts: 1479
Location: R'lyeh
Anonymous wrote:
The word "Wittgenstein" is:
1. Probably not his name. He was Austrian. "Wittgenstein" is the transliteration of the sound of his Austrian name into English, which is the language we are using here.

I know this is attempted humor, but still... WTF, mate? :D

_________________
Living in a state free from the burdens of privacy and democracy since 2008-06-18.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:19 pm 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
gnolam wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The word "Wittgenstein" is:
1. Probably not his name. He was Austrian. "Wittgenstein" is the transliteration of the sound of his Austrian name into English, which is the language we are using here.

I know this is attempted humor, but still... WTF, mate? :D


Not humor. The point. Work with me here.

1. We are using the English language to converse here.

2. "Wittgenstein" is Austrian, 19th century Austrian at that.

3. Therefore, is is reasonable to assume that his given name would be in one of the languages popular to Austria at the time. English is not one of them. Most likely, given the time, his true name was German.

4. German uses letters, diacritical marks, and other objects and modifiers not found in English. We could not use them to converse here: others not familiar with the "rules" of German would fail to understand them.

5. Therefore, "Wittgenstein" is merely the closest that we, using English, could come to approximating the syllabic construct that is what he was called. However, were you able to write it down and show it to him, he would not recognize it: it is not his name. His name can only be properly written, or spoken, in German.

I could be wrong here. I am, after all, used to friends whose given names are in Asian languages: many of them go for "close approximations", some just dump it entirely and go for brand new names. However, the person that they are is unchanged: the only thing that changes is the lingual standard they use to identify themselves as a object distinct from any other.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:43 pm 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Ishidan wrote:
4. German uses letters, diacritical marks, and other objects and modifiers not found in English. We could not use them to converse here: others not familiar with the "rules" of German would fail to understand them.


You can still write with umlauts in English. And Wittgenstein has no umlauts in German: for starters, neither i nor e take umlauts in German.

Quote:
Therefore, "Wittgenstein" is merely the closest that we, using English, could come to approximating the syllabic construct that is what he was called.


German uses the same alphabet as English. At best, he would expect to see his name in Gothic text.

The English pronunciation is undoubtedly different, since most English-speakers would fail to pronounce it "vittgenshtine". (With a hard g.)

Quote:
However, were you able to write it down and show it to him, he would not recognize it: it is not his name. His name can only be properly written, or spoken, in German.


You're probably making some deep philosophical point, perhaps about the context of language, but it's not working. If he read an English text and saw "Wittgenstein", he'd at least recognize it as his name, if not a reference to himself.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:36 am 
Jeremiah, you're splitting hairs to dodge the point.

Yes, you CAN use umlauts, etc. in English. However, few do. It is not part of the "game" that they recognize. (don't bother trying to map out the groups that do use all of the diacritical marks found in English. The fact that only some groups use them and others do not, while all professing to speak the same language, again demonstrates that language is a game, and we don't all play by the same rules.)

Okay, in this particular case, this name has nothing that can't map directly between the two languages of issue-English and German. I didn't know that, but in any event, you're using a specific exception to dodge the concept. Even then, poorly: the problem of pronunciation that you illustrated shows that we are only using an approximation in the language that we speak here.

Let's try another pair of languages, say, Chinese and English. I bring this up because I have many Chinese friends, and I KNOW that Chinese and English do not share the same alphabet, therefore, you can't perform the kind of special-case contradiction you just did there.

One of them is named Qi Chong Liang. If he wrote his name in Mandarin(the dialect he spoke in China) other people that speak Mandarin would be able to read it. However, I would not recognize what he wrote as representing himself: I do not know how to read Mandarin. He understands the rules to a linguistic game I do not, although we'd both be talking about the same physical fact. Conversely, if he wrote his name down in English, as I just did above, and showed it to somebody back home who only reads Mandarin (don't even start with me about how most people there probably read both, or I'll bring German back into it), they would not be able to identify the series of marks as representing himself.

Verbally, as well. If he takes a call on his cell phone and it's one of his friends who speaks Mandarin, he can go off on a long conversation to his freind in Mandarin, and be assured I won't catch a word: they are probably talking about a physical fact that I could comprehend, however, they are doing so using a system that they understand, and I do not.

Oh...did I call him Qi Chong? He doesn't use that name here, because most English speakers completely mangle the pronunciation. He has chosen another set of sounds to represent himself in America. Same person. Different name.

If this is getting too messed up, next time I think I won't use people's names as an example. Eh, I could always get into acronyms. Those are fun, and definitely serve as examples as to how language is a common game.

For example, my health insurance company tells me I need to select my PCP. However, the cops say they'll put me in prison if I have anything to do with PCP. How can this be?
Because the first time, I meant Personal Care Physician, and the second time, I meant phencyclidine. (where did the last "p" come from? I don't know.)

I can probably find a few sailors who can put on their CV that they fixed CV's on a CV.

That'd be Curriculum Vitae (known to most as a resume, which in turn is not pronouced like nor mean the same as the word that means "to continue"), Constant Velocity (a type of mechanical joint) or Check Valve or Combat Vehicles (another ambiguity that could only be resolved through context) and aircraft carrier (don't ask how they connected "CV" with "aircraft carrier". The JFK and the Kitty Hawk are our two remaining CV's, as opposed to the newer CVNs).

I'll be going to work today. I pack things for shipment. (no, I do not work in a fudge factory. Shut up.)

It'll be the normal CF if we again run out of CFs.

Cluster-f*ck and carton, fiber (the official name for a reinforced cardboard box) respectively.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:58 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
Oops, that last one was me. Thought I logged in, but it must have expired while I was writing that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:48 pm 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Anonymous wrote:
Jeremiah, you're splitting hairs to dodge the point.


I wasn't dodging your point. I saw your point, and agreed wholeheartedly. I just was pointing out that your example was not perfect. :D

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:21 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
jeremiahsmith wrote:
I wasn't dodging your point. I saw your point, and agreed wholeheartedly. I just was pointing out that your example was not perfect. :D


Oh. Thank you then :-)

Was my second one better?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group