Here
too however the expressions ‘directly aware
& indirectly
aware’ are very || extremely misleading. What gives us
the idea that the person who feels pain is aware of an
object, as it were, sees an object || it, whereas we are only 6 told that it's
there but can't see it? It is the peculiar
function of the verbs like
feeling, seeing etc. But before explaining
what I mean I must make a preliminary remark. For I know
that some of you will think this is the worst kind of
verbalism. So I must make a general remark about
grammar & reality. Roughly speaking the
relation of the grammar to reality is that || of
expressions to the facts which 7 is arbitrary. But in a most
important sense it is not. It has a most important reason
lying both in the size & in the irregularity of shape & in the use we make of a room that we
don't measure its dimension in μ. or even in
mm. That is to say not only the proposition which tells us
the result of measurement but also the description of the
method & unit of measurement tells us something about the
world 8 that this verbal
expression is in the first person used to replace
an expression of pain. So that if
some people say that ‘having pain’
in the end refers to pain behaviour we can
answer them, that ‘I have pain’ does not refer to
pain behaviour but is a pain behaviour. It
corresponds to a cry of pain not to the statement I am crying.
But surely you distinguish between my pain behaviour when I
just behave 9 you're bold enough to say
‘pain’ then the statement becomes
tautologous. If you want to avoid the mention of pain
because this already presupposes that we know
what is behind his expression then it doesn't help you to
say ‘a certain feeling’ or ‘a certain
something’ for how do you know that you are allowed to call
it a feeling or even a something. For
the word something has a public meaning 10 which is to justify his use of a pain
expression by a series of different objects which he has at
different times when he says he has pain. ‘But
surely the use of the word pain is based on the fact that he
‘recognises’ his private object as always
being the same on those occasions!’
What's he mean in this case by being the
‘same’, or ‘recognising’,
neither he nor we have ever learnt to apply these words 11 object at all & no more has
he. |
To cite this element you can use the following URL:
BOXVIEW: http://wittgensteinsource.org/BTE/Ms-166,5v[2]et6r[1]et6v[1]et7r[1]et7v[1]et8r[1]et8v[1]et9r[1]et9v[1]et10r[1]et10v[1]et11r[1]_n
RDF: http://wittgensteinsource.org/BTE/Ms-166,5v[2]et6r[1]et6v[1]et7r[1]et7v[1]et8r[1]et8v[1]et9r[1]et9v[1]et10r[1]et10v[1]et11r[1]_n/rdf
JSON: http://wittgensteinsource.org/BTE/Ms-166,5v[2]et6r[1]et6v[1]et7r[1]et7v[1]et8r[1]et8v[1]et9r[1]et9v[1]et10r[1]et10v[1]et11r[1]_n/json