'For the person or persons that hold dominion, can no more combine with the keeping up of majesty the running with harlots drunk or naked about the streets, or the performances of a stage player, or the open violation or contempt of laws passed by themselves than they can combine existence with non-existence'.

- Benedict de Spinoza. Political Treatise. 1677.




Monday, January 19, 2015

Philosophical Grammar 129


129.  A friendly mouth, friendly eyes, the wagging of a dog’s tail are primary symbols of friendliness: they are parts of the phenomena that are called friendliness. If we want to imagine further appearances as expressions of friendliness, we read these symbols into them. It is not that I can imagine that this man’s face might change so that it looked courageous, but that there is a quite definite way in which it can change into a courageous face.

Think of the multifariousness of what we call “language”: word-language, picture- language, gesture-language, sound-language



yes – we propose a description of ‘friendliness’

‘a quite definite way in which it can change into a courageous face’?

and yes – we describe the face as having changed – and describe the changed face as ‘courageous’

as to ‘quite definite’ –

a description – any description – is open to question – open to doubt – uncertain

there is no definite description

if you are ‘definite’ about your description –

you play the rhetorical game – not the logical game

the multifariousness of what we call language?

yes we use the description ‘language’ in any number of contexts –

this is a fact of propositional usage



© greg t. charlton. 2015.