《哲学研究》的原文摘录

  • P2,#1: I send someone shopping, I give him a slip of paper marked "five red apples". - (查看原文)
    宣棋 1赞 2017-03-02 14:20:37
    —— 引自第1页
  • P7,#6 But in the language of S2 it is not the purpose of the words to evoke images. (查看原文)
    宣棋 1回复 2017-03-04 14:35:59
    —— 引自第7页
  • P10,#15 naming something is rather like attaching a name tag to a thing. (查看原文)
    宣棋 1回复 2017-03-04 14:35:59
    —— 引自第7页
  • P11, #19 And to imagine a language means to imagine a form of life. (查看原文)
    宣棋 1回复 2017-03-04 14:35:59
    —— 引自第7页
  • #2 That philosophical notion of meaning is at home in a primitive idea of the way language functions. But one might instead say that it is the idea of a language more primitive than ours. (查看原文)
    宣棋 1回复 2017-03-04 14:35:59
    —— 引自第7页
  • 6.521人生问题的解答在于这个问题的消除。 (有些人在长期怀疑之后发现他们明白了人生的意义,但是又不能说出来这意义究竟是什么,不就是这个道理吗?) 6.522确实有不可说的东西。它们显示自己,它们是神秘的东西。 (查看原文)
    与约河岸 2017-12-14 12:54:04
    —— 引自章节:6.5
  • 弗兰克·拉姆赛有一次在和我交谈时强调指出,逻辑是一门“规范性学科”。我不完全知道他那时想的是什么,但他的想法无疑与我后来逐渐开始明白的想法紧密相关,那就是:在哲学中,我们经常把词的使用同具有固定规则的游戏或演算相比较,但是,我们不能说一个使用语言的人必须玩这样一种游戏。——然而,如果你说,我们的语言表达知识近似于这样一种演算,那你就恰恰已经站到了误解这一深渊的边缘上了。因为那样依赖,就好像我们在逻辑中所谈论的是一种理想语言。似乎我们的逻辑是一种适用于真空的逻辑。——然而逻辑当然不是在自然科学处理自然现象这个意义上处理语言——或思想的,——我们最多只能说我们构造理想的语言。但在这里“理想”这个词很易于引起误解,因为这听起来就好像这些语言比我们日常语言更好,更完满;就好像为了最终向人们指明一个正当的语句看来是什么样子而非需要逻辑学家不可一样。 (查看原文)
    Celine 2019-02-08 12:30:04
    —— 引自第57页
  • they do not use language—if we except the most primitive forms of language. (查看原文)
    Liagc 1回复 2019-05-22 23:24:03
    —— 引自第999页
  • Augustine describes the learning of human language as if the child came into a strange country and did not understand the language of the country; that is, as if it already had a language, only not this one. Or again: as if the child could already thinky only not yet speak. And "think" would here mean something like "talk to itself" (查看原文)
    Liagc 1回复 2019-05-22 23:24:03
    —— 引自第999页
  • For neither the expression "to intend the definition in suchand-such a way" nor the expression "to interpret the definition in such-and-such a way" stands for a process which accompanies the giving and hearing of the definition. (查看原文)
    Liagc 1回复 2019-05-22 23:24:03
    —— 引自第999页
  • This queer conception springs from a tendency to sublime the logic of our language—as one might put it. (查看原文)
    Liagc 1回复 2019-05-22 23:24:03
    —— 引自第999页
  • When Mr. N. N. dies o one says that the bearer of the name dies, not that the meaning dies (查看原文)
    Liagc 1回复 2019-05-22 23:24:03
    —— 引自第999页
  • the meaning of a word is its use in the language (查看原文)
    Liagc 1回复 2019-05-22 23:24:03
    —— 引自第999页
  • "so long as there is a this, the word 'this' has a meaning too, whether this is simple or complex." (查看原文)
    Liagc 1回复 2019-05-22 23:24:03
    —— 引自第999页
  • What lies behind the idea that names really signify simples?— Socrates says in the Theaetetus: "If I make no mistake, I have heard some people say this: there is no definition of the primary elements— so to speak—out of which we and everything else are composed; for everything that exists1 in its own right can only be named, no other determination is possible, neither that it is nor that it is not . . . . . But what exists1 in its own right has to be .... . named without any other determination. In consequence it is impossible to give an account of any primary element; for it, nothing is possible but the bare name; its name is all it has. But just as what consists of these primary elements is itself complex, so the names of the elements become descriptive language by being compounded to... (查看原文)
    Liagc 1回复 2019-05-22 23:24:03
    —— 引自第999页
  • we are sometimes even inclined to conceive the smaller as the result of a composition of greater parts, and the greater as the result of a division of the smaller (查看原文)
    Liagc 1回复 2019-05-22 23:24:03
    —— 引自第999页
  • When we forget which colour this is the name of, it loses its meaning for us; that is, we are no longer able to play a particular language-game with it. And the situation then is comparable with that in which we have lost a paradigm which was an instrument of our language, (查看原文)
    Liagc 1回复 2019-05-22 23:24:03
    —— 引自第999页
  • In what sense do the symbols of this language-game stand in need of analysis? How far is it even possible to replace this language-game by (48)?—It is just another language-game; even though it is related to (48). (查看原文)
    Liagc 1回复 2019-05-22 23:24:03
    —— 引自第999页
  • And the result of this examination is: w T e see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail. (查看原文)
    Liagc 1回复 2019-05-22 23:24:03
    —— 引自第999页
  • The kinship is that of two pictures, one of which consists of colour patches with vague contours, and the other of patches similarly shaped and distributed, but with clear contours. The kinship is just as undeniable as the difference. (查看原文)
    Liagc 1回复 2019-05-22 23:24:03
    —— 引自第999页