You may
say:
“Two
” can
be defin
ed ostensively only in
this
way: “This
number is called
‘two’”
, for || .
For the word “number”
shows here || here
shows in what place in the language
– in the grammar – we
set || put || what place in our
language – in our grammar – we assign to the
word; but this means that the word “number” must
be explained before that ostensive definition can be
understood. – The word “number” in
the definition does
certainly || indeed indicate
this place,
– the post
to which we assign || which we
assign to the word. And we can prevent
misunderstandings
in this way, by saying
,
“This
colour is called so and so”,
“This
length is called so and
so”
, etc.. That
is: misunderstandings
are often avoided in this
way. But can the word “colour”,
then, or “length”
, be
understood
only in
this way? –
Well,
we'll || we
shall have to explain them.
– Explain them by of other words, that
is || That is, explain them by means of other
words! And what about the last explanation
in this chain? (Don't say
:
“There isn't any ‘last’
explanation”
;
that || . This is exactly as though you
were
to say || said, “There
isn't any last house in this street: you can
always build
another one
further”.) || .”)
Whether the word “number”
in the ostensive definition of two is
necessary || is necessary in the ostensive definition of
“two” depends
on || upon whether he
understands this word differently from the way I
wish him to || takes this word in a different sense from the one I
wish || misunderstands my definition if I
leave out the word. And
that || this
will depend on the circumstances under which
the definition is given and on the person to whom I give
it.
20
¤
And how he “understands” the explanation
appears in how || will appear in the
way he makes use of th
e word
explained.