118. The false concept that recognizing always consists in comparing two
impressions with one another . –
“We couldn’t use words at all if we didn’t recognize them and the
objects they denote.” Have we any sort of check on this recognition?
‘The false concept that recognizing always consists in comparing two
impressions with one another . –‘?
to recognize is to describe –
‘impression’ here functions as a synonym for description
does recognition consists in comparing two descriptions?
any description – any recognition – is open to question – open to doubt
– is uncertain
any ‘comparison’ of descriptions – is an exploration of uncertainty
however for a comparison to take place – there must first be description
–
that is – there must first be recognition
“We couldn’t use words at all if we didn’t recognize them and the
objects they denote.” Have we any sort of check on this recognition?
we use words to describe
when I recognize a word – I recognize its use – its meaning –
that is to say – its description
a child is told the use of word –
be that in the form of a verbal definition – description of use – or an
ostensive definition – an ostensive description – i.e. “that is ‘red’ ”
and the objects they denote?
‘object’ – is a description
to denote is to propose a description
put it this way – if what you describe – is an object –
then that description ‘object’ is embedded in whatever it is that is
described
why is that – how did that come about?
well it’s a fact of use – and why any term is used – why any term comes
into existence at all – is an open
question –
and open question for which there are many and varied – and fascinating
answers
‘Have we any sort of check on this recognition?’
have we any check on description?
well we have argument
© greg t. charlton. 2015.
