§16
Are colour samples part of the language?
Wittgenstein says that we might or might not count them as part of the language but that it is natural to count the samples as tools of the language.
He has a kind of argument for this:
1. We wouldn't hesitate to say that the second 'the' in the sentence 'pronounce the word 'the'' is part of the language.
2. The second 'the' in the sentence above is playing the role of a sample - it is being used in the same sort of way that colour samples might be used.
_____________________________________________
C. We shouldn't hesitate to say that colour samples are part of the language.
Another reason for counting them as tools of the language/part of language. - They are used in ostensive explanations of meaning (am I using the right terminology here?). - Colour samples might be used in cases where we say something like 'postbox-red is that colour [pointing at a sample of postbox-red]'. Here we are explaining what 'postbox-red' means - in much the same way that we might do in other definitions which don't include colour samples. - So the colour sample is used in a way that things that clearly are 'tools of the language' are used - and so it is natural to say that colour samples are part of the language/tools of the language.
This passage struck me as a bit more tentative than your argument above - I didn't think W was saying that we 'shouldn't hesitate' here.
ReplyDeleteRather, language is a family-resemblance concept, not one with sharp boundaries, and so faced with the colour samples we have a decision to make - 'It is as you please'. The samples have a dissimilarity from central cases of language, since they're not spoken words, but they also have a similarity to other central cases of language where words are merely mentioned.
So, W doesn't say that it's "necessary" or "true" that the colour samples are part of the language; the concept of language won't determine the answer to whether they are. But given the similarities and dissimilarities, we may find one answer more 'natural'.
I wonder if s.17 has an application here: whether we classify the colour-samples part of the language will depend on 'the aim of the classification'. This might determine whether one answer or another 'causes least confusion'.
I think this relates to the s.2 example of the builders we talked about earlier. Is their use of 'slab', 'block' etc. a language? There are ways that it's like what we usually know as language, and ways that it's different. Maybe for some purposes it might be natural to call it a language, and for other purposes not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you actually. - I think my spin on it puts it a bit too strongly. - As you say, he does say 'it is as you please'. But he does say that it is most natural to count them amongst the tools of language which suggests that he errs on the side of counting them as such. My argument certainly doesn't say that they are necessarily a part of the language - and I didn't take what Wittgenstein said in that way.
ReplyDelete