Anonymous
7/1/2025, 6:13:28 PM No.24511720
What the fuck was Wittgod on about anyway regarding this analogy? He doesnt even outline it all that well.
If ones body turns to stone and they still feel, why should we imagine it any differently to how we normally feel, assuming we still feel, which assumes characteristics inherent to a body with nerves and tissue. But if we assume a body truly turned to stone, then nothing should be felt.
This is me engaging with the analogy in both senses. In the sense of simply pretending a body turned to stone can feel, ignoring all possible contradictions, one should simply assume pain would be experienced the same way, if it can be experienced at all. Maybe at the most, pain would be more dulled.
But also engaging with the analogy in the sense that considers all its contradictions.
I find that Wittgenstein is fairly smart, but Im not sure hes good at analogies. I think hes much better at what I call "likenesses" basically every time he brings up chess to make his point about language games, he never goes to deep into establishing the rules of chess to do so, because he doesnt need to, its intuitive the connection, he just needs to liken it.
But with the stone analogy, and some other analogy's like +2. I just dont get it. I get the point hes trying to make because ive been reading the book, but dont get how the analogy is trying to prove it.
What do you guys think? This is why im curious regarding thoughts on Wittgenstein because I'm not sure how much is just me not understanding, and how much is a fundamental flaw of the philosophy.
If ones body turns to stone and they still feel, why should we imagine it any differently to how we normally feel, assuming we still feel, which assumes characteristics inherent to a body with nerves and tissue. But if we assume a body truly turned to stone, then nothing should be felt.
This is me engaging with the analogy in both senses. In the sense of simply pretending a body turned to stone can feel, ignoring all possible contradictions, one should simply assume pain would be experienced the same way, if it can be experienced at all. Maybe at the most, pain would be more dulled.
But also engaging with the analogy in the sense that considers all its contradictions.
I find that Wittgenstein is fairly smart, but Im not sure hes good at analogies. I think hes much better at what I call "likenesses" basically every time he brings up chess to make his point about language games, he never goes to deep into establishing the rules of chess to do so, because he doesnt need to, its intuitive the connection, he just needs to liken it.
But with the stone analogy, and some other analogy's like +2. I just dont get it. I get the point hes trying to make because ive been reading the book, but dont get how the analogy is trying to prove it.
What do you guys think? This is why im curious regarding thoughts on Wittgenstein because I'm not sure how much is just me not understanding, and how much is a fundamental flaw of the philosophy.