Ah, so you've finished the whole book, then?

Eh?

I don't agree - with Wittgenstein, not with your exegesis. I'm going with Kripke, in saying that the stick in Paris was used to set a certain length as the referent of "one metre", a sort of baptism ceremony for that length, and that length is now set for all possible worlds.

So it does make sense to ask if the stick is a metre long.

Well, you've worked out the point of the whole book...

I don't agree - with Wittgenstein, not with your exegesis. I'm going with Kripke, in saying that the stick in Paris was used to set a certain length as the referent of "one metre", a sort of baptism ceremony for that length, and that length is now set for all possible worlds.

So it does make sense to ask if the stick is a metre long. — Banno

But we already know that it is a metre long - it was "baptised" as such.

If you proceed to ask the question, then how do you intend to measure it; to check whether or not it really is one metre long?

No, I've read some other people's opinions about the point of the whole book and found one which I liked. I presume you're aware that there is a huge amount of exegetical work already done on the PI. It's highly unlikely that anyone is going to have a view of the work that is entirely novel. None of us have to work out anything on our own if we don't want to. If you're actually at the stage of still working out the point of the book then you can I suggest you read some of the excellent expert commentaries. I'm really just here to see how what I think fits (or doesn't) with others. I think if you're here to 'work something out' you might be in the wrong place.

That's right - is a metre a particular length, or is it a process for measuring against a particular stick?

I'm going for the length. Can you change my mind?

I've read some other people's opinions about the point of the whole book and found one which I liked. — Ciaran

Well, I guess that's honest.

I'm trying to change your mind, but you didn't answer my question: how will you verify whether it is really one metre long?

Well yeah, do you think anyone else here has worked out their thoughts based on nothing but reading the actual text? I mean I'd admire their dedication to parsimony, but it'd be a bit of a daft thing to do given that other people have already provided a dozen different interpretations we can simply browse through.

how will you verify whether it is really one metre long? — Luke

If I may jump in to ask you a question, how do you personally typically verify if things are a metre long?

I typically measure them with a ruler.

You are assuming it can only actually be a metre long if we verify that it is a metre long, it would seem.

But that's not right. Even if its length were unverifiable, it might be a metre long.

Some here have read the whole book. Several times. And more than a few secondary and tertiary sources.

But yeah, these days a few minutes on Google will suffice, hey?

The point is, you're simultaneously saying that it is a metre long (because it was baptised as such) and that it is questionable whether it is a metre long.

It is actually a metre long, but it might not have been. Yes.

Some here have read the whole book. Several times. And more than a few secondary and tertiary sources.

But yeah, these days a few minutes on Google will suffice, hey? — Banno

Sorry, I'm not following you here, what do you mean by "a few minutes on Google will suffice"? The Internet is an excellent source of material but I think it would take more than a few minutes to get enough of a range of views to make an informed choice. If you find something you really like in the first few minutes then I can't see anything wrong with going with that, but I'd personally spend a bit more time on it.

But it's the yardstick! (The metre-stick, but you get my drift.) How could it "might not have been" a metre? It's the definition of a metre!

I typically measure them with a ruler. — Luke

Right, so what's preventing you from using exactly the same technique to measure the stick? It's sufficient for you to consider your plank (or whatever) to be a metre long, why has it suddenly become insufficient for measuring the stick?

It's the definition of a metre! — Luke

No, it's a definition of a metre in a particular language game, in the real world. When you are measuring up for your shed, the definition of a metre is not the stick, it's your tape measure. Change the game, you change the definition.

Given the shit going down in this thread, i wonder if this ought be in the Kripke thread...

https://academiaanalitica.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/kripke-saul-a-naming-and-necessity-cambridge-harvard-university-press-1981.pdf

P. 54, but also Lecture three.

The tape measure's metre is defined by the standard metre "stick", the same as all other metres. Which other metre are you thinking of?

The tape measure's metre is defined by the standard metre "stick", the same as all other metres. Which other metre are you thinking of? — Luke

No, the tape measures metre was defined by the Standard Metre. Who know what havoc temperature and humidity have wreaked on either in the meantime, but who cares? You certainly don't when you're building your shed. You're not continually referring back to the Standard Metre. What you are calling a metre is that which 'approximately' reaches the 1m mark on your tape measure,and that is sufficient. If you are concerned that some damage has befallen the Standard Metre, you might use your tape measure to help determine whether that is the case.

Kripke's suggestion that the length of the standard metre may change over time does not alter Wittgenstein's insight. Perhaps the length of the standard metre (stick) in Paris does change over time, but as long as we use it as our yardstick, or as our sample against which all others are defined, then it makes no difference. Or maybe we change to some other more sturdy material and then use that as the new standard metre, and from then on all metres will be defined with reference to that new standard.

Again, is the referent of "One Metre" a length, or is it a stick, or is it a process?

I say it is a length.

Are you talking about "one metre" or the standard metre? The standard metre is a stick which has the sample/standard length that defines "one metre".

The stick sets up the length, sure. Thereafter the term "one metre" refers to that length.

Not to the stick.

Not to the process of using the stick to measure.

No, the tape measures metre was defined by the Standard Metre. Who know what havoc temperature and humidity have wreaked on either in the meantime, but who cares? You certainly don't when you're building your shed. You're not continually referring back to the Standard Metre. What you are calling a metre is that which 'approximately' reaches the 1m mark on your tape measure,and that is sufficient. If you are concerned that some damage has befallen the Standard Metre, you might use your tape measure to help determine whether that is the case — Ciaran

I'm sure that some people care about precision of measurement other than shed-builders. Also, who knows what havoc the elements have likewise wreaked on your tape measure? But, anyway, your tape measure is not the standard. If the standard metre were damaged, then we might agree to use some other standard measurement instead, but for now the standard metre remains the standard.

Wittgenstein is talking about the stick, the standard measurement, the yardstick; not "one metre".

'Metre' is just word, nothing more. There is no thing that it 'really' is beyond what we use it for. So my tape measure is the standard for the language game involved in building a shed, I'm not 'really' referring indirectly to Standard Metre when using my tape measure. Refer to what Wittgenstein has to say about analyticity. You're not somehow getting at anything more real by referring back to the Standard Metre than I am by describing the word 'metre' as meaning that which reaches the 1m mark on my tape measure. He's trying to get you to see that the exact type of problem you are dealing with now is not really a problem at all.