“We have two
expressions: one for moaning without pain, & one for
moaning with pain.” To what states of
affairs am I pointing as explanations of these
two expressions?
“But these
‘expressions’
can't be mere
words, noises
, which you make, they get their importance only
from what's
behind them (the state
you're in, when you use them)!” –
But how can this state give importance to
noises which I produce?
Suppose I said:
The expressions get their importance from the fact, that they
are
used not used coolly but that we
can't help using them. This is as though I
said: laughter gets its
importance only through being a
natural expression, a
natural phenomenon not an artificial
form of
language. || code. Now what makes
a ‘natural form of expression’ natural?
Should we say: “An experience which
stands behind it”?