Seminar- Wittgenstein

In the seminar we listened to seminar papers on Wittgensteins book Tractatus Logico- Philosophicus, in his book he writes like I said in my last blog about the verification principle, but he also writes about a logically perfect language. He wants a language that is completely logically perfect so the words cannot be twisted to make a meaning which is incorrect. This statement in particular brought up an interesting debate with the class, we discussed that it would be near impossible to actually have this perfecly logical language as people would have to start from scratch with this new language. This would also create the problem that people would rebel against this new language so it would never take effect. Claire also thought of a good argument in her seminar paper that it would be especially hard because nowadays people have developed a text language in which they use to speak on social networking and text messages such as 'LOL', these abbreviations means you wouldn't be able to just change the language and make it mean something new.

We also discussed the use of words and how they have changed over time. The way we use words now is completely different from that of even only fifty years ago, this is essence means that throughout history languge has developed and changed with each decade, language could of once beeen perfectly logical but not anymore. With this in mind we were obvious to realise that environment was a big factor in the cause for language to develop. Myself being from Birmingham means that the language I use and have been brought up using is different from my fellow classmates. With this in mind it would be difficult to make have logical words that mean the same to everyone if I use different words and I only live 2 hours away.

We also discussed the way in which Wittgenstein expressed his views in his book, he writes with an assurance of his ideas. Stefano argued that philosophers always try to attack one anothers work however Wittgenstein writes with pure confidence in his idea that it is hard for anyone to challenge him. We then went on to discuss how we are taught things, such as pain. We argued that each country is brought up to handle pain differently, much as we are taught language. We know if were in pain because we are in pain but we know this because this is what we've been taught. Do we really believe were in pain because a particular action tells us we should be or do we actually feel it? This question is obviously hard to answer, different culture such as in Africa some tribes feel accomplished to inflict pain upon themsleves to prove their worthiness, does this mean they relish in their pain or they learn to hide it, or do they not actually know what pain is? This just like language is different for each person, you can't know what a symbol or a word means to each individual so is hard to state only one logical meaning over them.