Wittgenstein's Notion of Family Resemblance

#philosophy #wittgenstein #bryanmagee

[rajamohammed]

Language is from visual memories of objects, and visual images come first, the words next. Words could get changed in our brains by shifting to another language( i know more words in the language i write than i know in the language i interact with people, in fact, there is no contest, since i talk thirty very short sentences per day) but visuals are the bedrock from which we build our memories. People can forget a language but can't forget visuals that build up memories.
Writers can tell you how words come to them unasked, unaware that you were searching for them because writers write with their inner eye, not with any inner mouth. When i write a story or a novel, i am so surprised how easily i do my thing, with visuals getting into words, not the other way around. Again people get to have inner eye, not inner mouth.

P s my opinion in learning languages: one should learn as many languages as possible for everyone's got capacity in our brains to learn several languages in a lifetime. Why should we be lazy?

[cerwile]

Eyyyy welcome back! Sad you lost all your views. Are you going to upload all the old stuff?

[marcelinesdad]

This sounds like John Seattle? Where is this from?

[nicolasruiz]

I dont really think he is militating against anything

[alwaysgreatusa]

It hardly seems like a profound insight to point-out the obvious fact that the word 'game' has various and overlapping meanings. Natural language is democratic rather than autocratic, meaning that, ultimately, it is the majority of its users who decide (via their actual usage) what the words in that language mean. Most these users are actually ignorant of the exact dictionary definition of most of the words they use at any one time, so they frequently violate the scope of a word's definition. However, when such a violation becomes common among the language-users, the misused word takes on the new meaning in actual usage, thus the scope of the word tends to grow over time. Moreover, the misuse of the word is usually due to some incomplete understanding by the user of what the word means at the time, thus it suffices for the practical purposes of the user that his meaning is approximately close in some way to what he has experienced the word to mean in the past. When this repeatedly happens in a natural language, it is really not at all surprising that a general name has several overlapping meanings, rather than one essential meaning.

All this being said, does it necessarily follow that there is no real essence to a concept like 'justice' ? No, because there is almost universal agreement that justice means giving people what they deserve or have a right to receive. While people obviously disagree on who deserves what and why, or who has what rights and who doesn't have such rights, this disagreement does not destroy the essence that real justice is giving people what they deserve, and/or upholding their rights.

What do all cases of justice have in common ? They are all cases in which someone is getting what they deserve and/or having their rights upheld.