>Wittgenstein realized that words don’t have meaning in isolation. They get their meaning from how they’re used in context, much like tools in a toolbox. A hammer gets its meaning from the work it does, so does a word.

The individual mind gives meaning to things. Nothing by itself has meaning. A isolated word can have meaning if you will. In Sanskrit, syllables have meaning.

>>24506049 (OP)
so basically he thinks like me when it comes to linguistics?

>>24506053
Dunno. What do you think when it comes to linguistics?

>>24506056
mostly contextual, and cultural

>>24506061
So you allow other people's memes dictates what you think?

>>24506049 (OP)
>language game time
>what's the difference between speaking and meaning if words are used in both?
>all users can't know what the other is actually thinking
>everything spoken is public
>all meanings are public
>what can be said in public is now the limit of meaning?

>>24506049 (OP)
>A hammer gets its meaning from the work it does, so does a word.

Is this how things really work though? Someone invented the hammer, and they likely had intended uses for it. Someone can come up with alternative uses for a hammer, of course, but it is not like the hammer was created without purpose. Similary, people mean things when they say words. Those meanings may shift and change over time, but did the words emerge without any meaning? We're they just sounds that later found meaning? It doesn't seem like it.

>>24506049 (OP)
I don't get it, this is the shit I'd consider deep when I was 16. Am I missing something here?

>>24506049 (OP)
so, what is a woman?

how is this novel or interesting in the preceding history of philosophy or given what semiotics like Charles Peirce were exploring back in the 1860s

>>24506656
I guess the meaning depends on the use. Wittgenstein did issue a significant challenge to Locke.

>>24506485
a hammeer is used for hammering, if you change the use of the hammer, then the hammer changes in meaning

>>24506049 (OP)
>"greatest philosopher of the 20th Century"
>Restated what Saussure realized decades ago and what Nagarjuna implied thousands of years ago
Why the hype?

>>24506672
If you change the way you use a hammer, you might be adding more meaning to it. But if you use a hammer as an extension of your arm to reach something up high, that doesn't make the hammer incapable of hammering nails into things. Similarly, words develop additional meanings long before the earlier meanings disappear. Now if you continously augment your hammer to a specific new task, then you have obviously made a different tool. Something will always exist for knocking nails into wood though.

>>24506850
>if the present and future are connected to the past then they should all be in the past.

>this makes it hard to justify a present and future.

>if time cannot be grasped how can it be understood?

>where can time exist?

>agent and action are incomplete and purposeless, there is just clinging.