"Philosophers are often like little children, who first scribble random lines on a piece of paper with their pencils, and then ask an adult "What is that?"---Here's how this happened: now and then the adult had drawn something for the child and said: "That's a man", "That's a house", etc. And then the child draws lines too, and asks: now what's that?" (Philosophical Occasions, p.193)
We mind about THE of expressions we use concerning these things; we do not understand them, however, but misinterpret them. When we do philosophy we are like savages, primitive people, who hear the expressions of civilized men, put a false interpretation on them, and then draw the queerest conclusions from it. (My capitalization)
"THE kind of expressions" 是指之前所引說的一堆講法，維根斯坦的提醒 (We mind about...the queerest conclusions) 也是就著那些講法說的，這樣說是清晰的。但將這個提醒到一般哲學家的講法(expressions)裡，就不清楚了。
- 不，那是指我們日常的講法，不是指那些queerest conclusions. 第四版的翻譯比較清楚："Though we do pay attention to the way we talk about these matters, we don't understand it, but misinterpret it." 維根斯坦接著說"When we do philosophy ..."，便是在generalize。
I still have not gone home yet that at my hand is still the second edition of Philosophical Investigations.
/* - 不，那是指我們日常的講法，不是指那些queerest conclusions. 第四版的翻譯比較清楚："Though we do pay attention to the way we talk about these matters, we don't understand it, but misinterpret it." 維根斯坦接著說"When we do philosophy ..."，便是在generalize。 */
I didn't commit that "the kind of expressions" or "the way we talk" is referring to the queerest conclusions, but I think it refers to the expression like "The machine's action seems to be in it from the start" (s193). The kind of expressions is of course about ordinary sayings, but about specific ordinary sayings. (cf. s38, that it is also about ordinary sayings, but about the language-game of naming specifically.)
Therefore, it is arguable that the sentence “When we do philosophy we are like…” is not generalizing anything at all. It is an analogy of what has just been said. “the queerest conclusions” should be comparable to “the possible movements of a machine are already there in it in some mysterious way” and “so possibility is something which is like reality” stated earlier. It would become clear when we look back at s38 in where states “For philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday” with previous discussion of queer process of naming. Clearly, there has no any generalization upon ordinary sayings. But letting us make sense of the idea of ‘philosophical problem’ and 'language goes on holiday'. Or in my favorite way to say, it is a first sentence of the introduction of the language-games ‘philosophy’ and working of language.
I would avoid discussing the PI at such length here.
"It is arguable", certainly! That's the fun of reading the PI. However, I should point out that in section 38 the expression used is "philosophical problems", not "the philosophical problem".
亞黃：
回覆刪除"荒誕的結論" 應怎理解法？
以往的大哲學家們得出荒誕的結論，這並不荒誕，還經常發生。荒誕的結論是我們預期中，見怪不怪，豈不是不荒誕嗎？
個問題都係"荒誕的結論"係乜野，係咪即係表示有"正常的結論"？什麼是哲學上正常的結論？
相信維根不會"空降"這句說話吧... 看前文後理應該知道他的意思. 希望博主延續討論!!!
回覆刪除yan,
回覆刪除第三版英譯用"the queerest conclusions"，第四版用"the oddest conclusions"，我用「極其荒誕的結論」，似乎比英譯的意思強了些。無論如何，"queer"，"odd" 和「荒誕」都是含混的詞語，但在這裏不一定要釐清，因為只要自己對這些詞語有大概的了解，這句說話已有提醒自己的作用。正如你提醒自己凡事要小心，並不須先清楚界定「小心」的意義。
//以往的大哲學家們得出荒誕的結論，這並不荒誕，還經常發生。荒誕的結論是我們預期中，見怪不怪，豈不是不荒誕嗎？//
- 見怪不怪的是「以往的大哲學家們得出荒誕的結論」這一事實，見怪不怪的不是他們的結論。Cf.假如你每次留言都說一些奇怪難明的說話，那麼，「你每次留言都說一些奇怪難明的說話」便會成為一個見怪不怪的事實，但這並不表示你的留言不可以繼續奇怪難明下去。
匿名,
回覆刪除上下文那幾節的意思，我沒可能在這裏講清楚；然而，類似我引的那句說話，維根斯坦在其他地方也說過，而且是沒有上下文的，例如：
"Philosophers are often like little children, who first scribble random lines on a piece of paper with their pencils, and then ask an adult "What is that?"---Here's how this happened: now and then the adult had drawn something for the child and said: "That's a man", "That's a house", etc. And then the child draws lines too, and asks: now what's that?" (Philosophical Occasions, p.193)
yan,
回覆刪除我姓「王」。
我想yan的用意是，如果我們沒有對什麼是“荒誕”的哲學賦予一個明確的意思，那我們似乎便為因個人喜好或“哲學直覺”拒絕一個哲學理論或論證打開了一道方便之門。
回覆刪除上面有筆誤，希望意思能表示清楚
回覆刪除Wong,
回覆刪除身處辦公室，隨身帶的只有 Philosophical Investigations 的第二版。你所引用的是s194的最後一段：
We mind about THE of expressions we use concerning these things; we do not understand them, however, but misinterpret them. When we do philosophy we are like savages, primitive people, who hear the expressions of civilized men, put a false interpretation on them, and then draw the queerest conclusions from it. (My capitalization)
"THE kind of expressions" 是指之前所引說的一堆講法，維根斯坦的提醒 (We mind about...the queerest conclusions) 也是就著那些講法說的，這樣說是清晰的。但將這個提醒到一般哲學家的講法(expressions)裡，就不清楚了。
如果有人景經常提醒自己凡事小心，那麼精神科醫生就有權問他凡事小心是什麼意思。
/* 假如你每次留言都說一些奇怪難明的說話，那麼，「你每次留言都說一些奇怪難明的說話」便會成為一個見怪不怪的事實，但這並不表示你的留言不可以繼續奇怪難明下去。*/
你對。可能我今早的留言奇怪難明，但我的意思是，在沒有給出荒誕結論的判準前，你認為荒誕的結論，經過理解後，可能其實並不荒誕。
原來你姓王，對不起。
CYC,
回覆刪除我明白yan的意思，但他似乎誤解了我所說的。我不是說凡自己認為荒誕的結論，便應該斷然不接受。哲學當然沒有這麼簡單。「荒誕的結論」只是一個用來提醒自己的標籤，以保證自己會多加反省，不會盲目地被自己複雜而機智的論證牽引。
yan,
回覆刪除//"THE kind of expressions" 是指之前所引說的一堆講法//
- 不，那是指我們日常的講法，不是指那些queerest conclusions. 第四版的翻譯比較清楚："Though we do pay attention to the way we talk about these matters, we don't understand it, but misinterpret it." 維根斯坦接著說"When we do philosophy ..."，便是在generalize。
>我不是說凡自己認為荒誕的結論，便應該斷然不接受。哲學當然沒有這麼簡單。
回覆刪除我相信我和yan一樣，對你這點並沒有懷疑。
或許換一個問法。像傳統認識論中，懷疑論，solipsism都是些夠荒誕不經的理論。在現代，如Quine的indeterminacy of translation，Lewis的counterpart theory也屬於此類。你眼中這些理論算不算"極其荒誕"，哲學家"應以為戒"的?
Wong,
回覆刪除CYC gets close to my thoughts.
I still have not gone home yet that at my hand is still the second edition of Philosophical Investigations.
/* - 不，那是指我們日常的講法，不是指那些queerest conclusions. 第四版的翻譯比較清楚："Though we do pay attention to the way we talk about these matters, we don't understand it, but misinterpret it." 維根斯坦接著說"When we do philosophy ..."，便是在generalize。 */
I didn't commit that "the kind of expressions" or "the way we talk" is referring to the queerest conclusions, but I think it refers to the expression like "The machine's action seems to be in it from the start" (s193). The kind of expressions is of course about ordinary sayings, but about specific ordinary sayings. (cf. s38, that it is also about ordinary sayings, but about the language-game of naming specifically.)
Therefore, it is arguable that the sentence “When we do philosophy we are like…” is not generalizing anything at all. It is an analogy of what has just been said. “the queerest conclusions” should be comparable to “the possible movements of a machine are already there in it in some mysterious way” and “so possibility is something which is like reality” stated earlier. It would become clear when we look back at s38 in where states “For philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday” with previous discussion of queer process of naming. Clearly, there has no any generalization upon ordinary sayings. But letting us make sense of the idea of ‘philosophical problem’ and 'language goes on holiday'. Or in my favorite way to say, it is a first sentence of the introduction of the language-games ‘philosophy’ and working of language.
CYC,
回覆刪除你舉例的理論的確是我認為是荒誕的，尤其是solipsism.
yan,
回覆刪除I would avoid discussing the PI at such length here.
"It is arguable", certainly! That's the fun of reading the PI. However, I should point out that in section 38 the expression used is "philosophical problems", not "the philosophical problem".
Wong,
回覆刪除Thanks for pointing it out. But I still think lacking of the word 'the' doesn't bother my own understanding.
Actually, I have my own understanding of the PI which is different from "the standard reading".
Anyway, you are right, length discussion is not good for this occassion.