“Ouch” isn’t the name of anything; it’s what you say when you hurt yourself. — Luke

An English speaker would say "ouch", an Indonesian speaker would say "aduh", meaning that exclaiming "ouch" is not an innate behaviour but is rather learnt as part of a language. — RussellA

I've been addressing your mistaken belief that:

the word "ouch!" names a set of particular observed behaviours in the world — RussellA

Therefore, I don't see how your response about learning language is relevant.

Words are not all just the names of things. — Banno

Which comes first, knowing the meaning of a word and then understanding the sentence it is in or learning the meaning of a word from the sentence it is in in order to understand the sentence. It cannot be the latter. First, we must know the meaning of a word before being able to use it. Wittgenstein says that the naming of words comes before using them.
PI 26: To repeat—naming is something like attaching a label to a thing. One can say that this is preparatory to the use of a word. But what is it a preparation for?

Wittgenstein writes that in language, words don't just refer to objects.
PI 27: Think of exclamations alone, with their completely different functions. Water! Away! Ow! Help! Fine! No! Are you inclined still to call these words "names of objects"?

Some words we can learn the meaning of as they are the names of objects, such as "stones".
PI 7 . In the practice of the use of language (2) one party calls out the words, the other acts on them. In instruction in the language the following process will occur: the learner names the objects; that is, he utters the word when the teacher points to the stone.—And there will be this still simpler exercise: the pupil repeats the words after the teacher——both of these being processes resembling language.

We can learn the meaning of words such as "ouch!", which are not the names of objects, by being taught that they can replace particular pain behaviour.
PI 244 A child has hurt himself and he cries; and then adults talk to him and teach him exclamations and, later, sentences. They teach the child new pain-behaviour. "So you are saying that the word 'pain' really means crying?"— On the contrary: the verbal expression of pain replaces crying and does not describe it.

If a word can replace something, then it names that something. For example, as the word "table" can replace the words " a piece of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface for eating, writing, or working at", then "table is the name for a piece of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface for eating, writing, or working at". As "ouch!" can replace a pain behaviour, then "ouch!" names that pain behaviour.

Do words name things? An object is a "thing". I suppose it depends on whether one can call a pain behaviour a "thing". A pain behaviour is something, but is it a "thing"?

I've been addressing your mistaken belief that...............the word "ouch!" names a set of particular observed behaviours in the world......................Therefore, I don't see how your response about learning language is relevant. — Luke

Saying "ouch!" is not an involuntary act such as wincing, but rather a cognitive act as part of a language game requiring conscious thought intended to communicate a private sensation to others.

If not naming the pain behaviour directly and the private sensation indirectly, then what purpose does the word "ouch!" have in the language game?

If not naming the pain behaviour directly and the private sensation indirectly, then what purpose does the word "ouch!" have in the language game? — RussellA

As I've already told you: saying "ouch" doesn't name pain behaviour; saying "ouch" is pain behaviour.

To say that "ouch" names a pain behaviour is to treat it as though it were a verb, such as "wincing". You don't (typically) describe a person as ouching. A person uses the word "ouch" to express their pain. The word "ouch" is not used as a name or as a description of anyone's behaviour.

Saying "ouch!" is not an involuntary act such as wincing, but rather a cognitive act as part of a language game requiring conscious thought intended to communicate a private sensation to others. — RussellA

If I stub my toe I may say "ouch" even if no one else is around to hear me. Certainly this is not intended to communicate a private sensation to others or to myself.

Words are not all just the names of things. — Banno

I didn't properly answer your question.

It seems that the PI is making the case that god in the atheist's language game means something different to god in the Christian's language game. Neither meaning is either right or wrong, as long as each language game is coherent within itself. The word god doesn't represent a fact in the world, doesn't name something in the world, but has a meaning dependent on its context within a particular language game.

PI 43 - For a large class of cases—though not for all—in which we employ the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language.

The meaning of god in the atheist's language game is how it is used in that language game. The meaning of god in the Christian's language game is how it is used in that language game. So it is true that the meaning of a particular word, such as god, depends on which language game it is being used within

However, within a particular language game, which comes first, i) knowing the meaning of a word and then understanding the sentence it is in, or ii) learning the meaning of a word from the sentence it is in in order to understand the sentence.

It cannot be ii), therefore it must be i). The nature of the language game can only be known after the meaning of a set of words has been fixed, rather than the meaning of the set of words within a language game have been fixed by the language game.

PI 26: To repeat—naming is something like attaching a label to a thing. One can say that this is preparatory to the use of a word. But what is it a preparation for?

Doesn't this mean that the nature of the language game has already been determined by an a priori choice of words that happen to be used in that language game rather than the meaning of a word is how it is used in the language game ?

If I stub my toe I may say "ouch" even if no one else is around to hear me. Certainly this is not intended to communicate a private sensation to others or to myself. — Fooloso4

Then why did you say the word ?

To say that "ouch" names a pain behaviour is to treat it as though it were a verb, such as "wincing" — Luke

"House" as a noun names a building for human habitation. "Ouch!" as a noun names a pain behaviour.

PI 26: To repeat—naming is something like attaching a label to a thing.

Then why did you say the word ? — RussellA

Because it hurt. I could have said some other things or let out an inarticulate exclamation.

Which comes first, knowing the meaning of a word and then understanding the sentence it is in or learning the meaning of a word from the sentence it is in in order to understand the sentence. — RussellA

Implicit in this is a false dichotomy: that there is a difference between knowing the meaning of the word and knowing how to use the word.

If someone were to use a given word appropriately in every case, on what grounds could you claim: "Yes, but they do not know what it means."

Doesn't this mean that the nature of the language game has already been determined by an a priori choice of words that happen to be used in that language game rather than the meaning of a word is how it is used in the language game ? — RussellA

Not at all. It only means that this game is played. We enter into a community that already plays various language games – see §27, where Wittgenstein points out that naming is already participating in a language game. Subsequent sections show how much is already taken as granted in order for one to participate in the game of naming.

I didn't properly answer your question. — RussellA

And you still haven't. However it is clear that you have not seen how to replace thinking in terms of meaning with thinking in terms of use, and are still attempting to get at meaning by looking at use while treating these as distinct things. We can proceed instead by dropping talk of meaning and instead looking only to use.

And this is where you have plateaued.

"Ouch" as a noun names a pain behaviour. — RussellA

Use it in a sentence.

If someone were to use a given word appropriately in every case, on what grounds could you claim: "Yes, but they do not know what it means." — Banno

On what grounds would you say they do know what it means? I mean, there's a possible world where a parrot uses "peanut" correctly every time. Does it know what "peanut" means? I'd say no.

In other words, the expectation that your fellow humans have linguistic capability is part of the assessment. That's part of the grounds.

...that your fellow humans have linguistic capability is part of the assessment. That's part of the grounds. — frank

Yep.

Yep. — Banno

So a computer or parrot always uses the word correctly without knowing what the word means. I guess that makes me wonder what the special human magic is that renders them knowing. Hmm.

Show me a parrot that runs a peanut farm. Parrots do not participate in what Witti called the "form of life" in the way that farmers do. That is, there is more to the use of "peanut" than saying things - there is participating in growing, trading and selling, for a start.

Language games are not restricted only to language use. We are embedded in them in all our day-to-day activities.

The interesting case might be, say, ChatGPT, which apparently uses words correctly just on the basis of a large scale statistical analysis. And yes, I am incline to say that ChatGPT does not participate in the world to the degree requisite to say that it understands the words it uses. It lacks the "magic" if you like.

Wittgenstein's approach is not unproblematic.

Show me a parrot that runs a peanut farm. Parrots do not participate in what Witti called the "form of life" in the way that farmers do. That is, there is more to the use of "peanut" than saying things - there is participating in growing, trading and selling, for a start.

Language games are not restricted only to language use. We are embedded in them in all our day-to-day activities. — Banno

I get that. That seems to suggest that there's a certain potential associated with humans, the potential to live out a form of life that involves meaning. That way a baby can know the meaning of "peanut" pretty much the same way a peanut farmer does. The farmer's associations with the word are vast and visceral compared to the baby's, but there is some common ground, as you say, arising from what we are. Do you agree with that? That the baby and farmer mean the same thing by "peanut"?

That seems to suggest that there's a certain potential associated with humans — frank

Yep. That "potential" is usually thought of as "intention", and hence Anscombe's interest in that topic.

That the baby and farmer mean the same thing by "peanut"? — frank

:cool: And what is the purpose of this question - what is it's use? Let's look at it as Wittgenstein might, by checking the use rather than the meaning; so instead let's ask "Do the baby and the farmer use 'peanut' in the same way?".

And I hope it is clear that the answer is "No."

:up:

If someone were to use a given word appropriately in every case, on what grounds could you claim: "Yes, but they do not know what it means."
— Banno

On what grounds would you say they do know what it means? — frank

Ask yourself: what makes it possible, what has to be the case, what would we judge as necessary or sufficient in order to claim that you know what you are saying? The answer are the criteria that matter to us (what is meaningful in this case). To say you know what is meaningful in having said something is to be aware and cognizant of, or at least experienced with, the consequences you are getting yourself into, the implications that can be drawn, what else might have been said in this situation (a threat rather than an apology), etc. Take the case where we would say “They don’t know what they are saying.” The person’s words need not be “incorrect”, nor “misused”.

So a computer or parrot always uses the word correctly without knowing what the word means. I guess that makes me wonder what the special human magic is that renders them knowing. Hmm. — frank

“Meaning” is not attached to words (other than naming, in a sense) to be used (as in operated) “correctly”. There are concepts (activities) like naming and regurgitating, synthesizing, paraphrasing, arguing, supporting, etc. And there are “uses” of those concepts: sometimes different senses, like knowing has; and sometimes just in different situations. What determines what use, is whether and how the criteria of that particular use are ordinarily met in a particular context, even something that is or can be two things at once, like a request that is also a joke. We do not make these things happen (with exceptions), we judge them to be the case.

A parrot saying “Polly wants a cracker” knows how to get a cracker, which is knowledge in the sense of (in its use as) knowing how something works, and it might even mean (as in correspond with, name) that the bird is hungry (even that it is an expression of its desire). But it is not a request; not because of the lack of something (magic, intention), but just that birds can’t meet the requirement of asking something of another (though the concept stretches when we look at some of their dances) because they cannot acknowledge (or ignore) the debt of it. And a parrot having said that also fits into the category of humor, but we wouldn’t say the bird is joking because part of humor is the self-knowledge of the implications and consequences of saying something across form or in the wrong context, which awareness and reflection etc. are only possible in humans (expected of), which is also part of how and why a request coming from a bird is funny. A person can also be unaware though, but then it is foolish, or unwitting; so nonetheless funny, only in a different sense (use).

The interesting case might be, say, ChatGPT, which apparently uses words correctly just on the basis of a large scale statistical analysis. And yes, I am incline to say that ChatGPT does not participate in the world to the degree requisite to say that it understands the words it uses. It lacks the "magic" if you like. — Banno

So if we take away the picture of words being necessarily (always) “used”, as in manipulated or ordered or operated or intended, and so also throw away the measure of “correct”, than we can judge that or whether a computer is copying, quoting, regurgitating, synthesizing, paraphrasing, arguing, supporting, failing, mistaking, etc., which is a richer tapestry and with hope of more interest than just whether a machine is “human”. That ChatGPT is not “participating in the world” is true in the sense that we do not judge it as we would judge a human (the consequences of the plagarism transfer to its user). The words cannot mean what they do to us (even if said correctly) because a computer is not (nor a parrot) responsible for what it says. If a human is unable to face the fallout of their actions, they do not “understand” what they are saying (“the words they use”) because they are ignorant (a child), naive, a buffoon, etc.

Use it in a sentence. — Luke

If someone can see me, they see a picture of me wincing. If someone cannot see me, and hear me say "ouch!", they can replace the word "ouch!" by a picture of me wincing, ie, the word "ouch!" names the picture of me wincing.

The word "ouch!" names a picture, and a picture is a noun. Therefore, in the sentence "Ouch!", the word "ouch!" is being used as a noun.

If someone can see me, they see a picture of me wincing. If someone cannot see me, and hear me say "ouch!", they can replace the word "ouch!" by a picture of me wincing, ie, the word "ouch!" names the picture of me wincing.

The word "ouch!" names a picture, and a picture is a noun. Therefore, in the sentence "Ouch!", the word "ouch!" is being used as a noun. — RussellA

“Ouch” is not a name, it is an expression; not like a saying, but like the opposite of being stone-faced. And so wincing is also an expression of pain (they mean the same to us, as in: they have the same implications). Not “a pain” like if you turned the hurt into an object (or a pulse of neurons). Your expression of pain is a release, like a good cry, or it is (to me) a cry for help, a claim on my compassion. These are the ordinary terms upon which we handle pain, what matters about it to us. The desire to name the pain is a desire to be certain of my humanity while avoiding me as a human. To take “what I mean” as an independent thing rather than an obligation to become intelligible to each other.

Use it in a sentence.
— Luke

If someone can see me, they see a picture of me wincing. If someone cannot see me, and hear me say "ouch!", they can replace the word "ouch!" by a picture of me wincing, ie, the word "ouch!" names the picture of me wincing.

The word "ouch!" names a picture, and a picture is a noun. Therefore, in the sentence "Ouch!", the word "ouch!" is being used as a noun. — RussellA

You said that the word "ouch" is a noun, like the word "house" is a noun.

I asked you for an example of how the word "ouch" might be used in a sentence (as a noun). If I were to ask you for an example of how the word "house" might be used in a sentence (as a noun), you could cite an example such as:

"I live in a very big house."
"This house is made of bricks."
"His house was painted yellow."
"We take our shoes off in this house."

You did not give an example of how the word "ouch" might be used in a sentence. Instead, you said that the word "ouch" is a sentence. Would you likewise say that the word "house" is a sentence? If not, why not?

Could you provide an(other) example of how the word "ouch" might be used in a sentence (as a noun)?

“Ouch” is not a name, it is an expression — Antony Nickles

I agree that "ouch!" is an expression, as I wrote before "In that sense one can rightly say that "ouch!" is an expression of pain."

The word "ouch!" replaces a picture. As a noun is a word that refers to a thing, and as a picture also refers to a thing, a picture is a noun. As only a noun can replace a noun, "ouch!" is also a noun.

"Ouch!" is an exclamation, a short sound, word or phrase spoken suddenly to express an emotion. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, an exclamation is a noun: 1) a sharp or sudden utterance, 2) vehement expression of protest or complaint.

However it is clear that you have not seen how to replace thinking in terms of meaning with thinking in terms of use, and are still attempting to get at meaning by looking at use while treating these as distinct things — Banno

If I go into a corner shop, see people say "I want a cracker" and are given a cracker, then when I want a cracker I know to say "I want a cracker". As Wittgenstein said, meaning is use.
PI 43 For a large class of cases—though not for all—in which we employ the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language

But if I went into the corner shop and just said "I", nothing would happen, even though the shopkeeper would know what "I" means. They would see no use in my saying it. Similarly if I just said "want", or just said "a" or just said "cracker", the shopkeeper would know the meaning of each word, but would see no use in my saying these words. Only the complete sentence "I want a cracker" not only has meaning but also a use.

If a parrot walked into a corner shop and spoke "I want a cracker", the shopkeeper would do nothing as they know the parrot is not aware of the language game.

A child may see in a corner shop people saying "I want a cracker" and being given a cracker. On returning home, the child may say to its parents "I want a cracker". On not being given a cracker, then discovers that its parents are playing a different language game. Only by trial and error the child may discover that they will only be given a cracker when saying "Please I want a cracker", thereby successfully becoming part of its parents' language game.

I can understand that a sentence has both meaning and use, but isn't it the case that a single word may have a meaning but no use?

We enter into a community that already plays various language games — Banno

It could well be that as the child grows up, it may decide that the word "please" is a symbol of a military industrial complex that squashes the democratic rights of the proletariat, and decides that the the word "please" should therefore be banned from use. In changing the meaning of the word "please", it has instantly created a new language game, even if they are the only person who has such a belief. In effect, they have created a private language game.

Isn't a language game used by only one person a private language game?

You did not give an example of how the word "ouch" might be used in a sentence — Luke

I said that "Ouch!" is a sentence, not that "ouch" is a sentence.

The word "ouch!" is an exclamation, and according to the University of Sussex, an exclamation can be a sentence.

I said that "Ouch!" is a sentence, not that "ouch" is a sentence. — RussellA

I don't disagree that "Ouch!" is a sentence. What I disagree with is your assertion that "ouch" is a noun and/or the name of a behaviour. Given your assertion that "ouch" is a noun, I asked you to use it in a sentence as a noun.

The word "ouch!" is an exclamation, and according to the University of Sussex, an exclamation can be a sentence. — RussellA

I agree that "ouch" is an exclamation. This is what any dictionary tells us. However, the dictionary does not say that "ouch" is a noun. I have asked you for an example of using "ouch" in a sentence as a noun to support your assertion and to demonstrate that "ouch" is a noun.

What I disagree with is your assertion that "ouch" is a noun and/or the name of a behaviour — Luke

I am sure that "ouch!" is a noun and/or the name of a behaviour. If somewhere along the line I wrote "ouch", without the exclamation mark, this was a mistyping.

. But it is not a request; not because of the lack of something (magic, intention), but just that birds can’t meet the requirement of asking something of another (though the concept stretches when we look at some of their dances) because they cannot acknowledge (or ignore) the debt of it. — Antony Nickles

What do humans have that birds don't have, which allows them to "acknowledge the debt of it."?

Beware the homunculus problem, which is like sweeping something under a rug.

I am sure that "ouch!" is a noun and/or the name of a behaviour. — RussellA

It is neither.

Ouch!" is an exclamation… an exclamation is a noun: — RussellA

It is the exclamation itself that is a noun, as an event, not as a name for (referent for) “the pain” (some object inside us). And the word is not a replacement for a “picture” (whatever we would imagine when we hear it I suppose you to mean); it is a replacement for the wordless expression, the wince, the cry, the clear attempt at repression, etc.

This way of looking at pain as word-object is created to avoid the real way pain matters between me and to you (how it works)—that it is I that is in pain (I am the one; I don’t know pain, I have it) and you either acknowledge me (say, come to my aid) or ignore me, reject me (say I’m faking). The theoretical approach to other minds (of which pain is just an example) is to attempt to get around the opacity of the other, the truth that I may not know because I cannot be certain of the other.