|
One might say then:
The ostensive definition explains the use – the
meaning – of the word if it is already clear in
general what ˇkind of role the word is to play in
the language. Thus if I know that someone wants to
explain a colour word to me, then the explanation
“Th[at'|is
i]s called ‘sepia’” will
help make me to get an
understanding of the
word. – And you can say this
You have to know something already
If you show someone the king in a ˇset of chess game ˇmen and say, “Th[at|is] is the king of chess”, you do not thereby explain to him the use of this piece, – unless he already knows the rules of the game except for this last point: the
But we can also imagine someone's having lea[v|r]ned the game without ever having learned or formulated [v|r]ules. He has perhaps first learned very simple games on boards by watching them and has proceeded to more and more complicated ones. To him also you might give the explanation, “Th[at|is] is the king”, if, for instance, you are showing him chess
21 we
might say,
Consider still another case: I explain the game of chess to someone and begin by showing him a pieceand , saying, “Th[at|is] is the king”. – [He| It] can move in this and this way, etc. etc.”. – In this case we shall say: the words “Th[at|is] is the king” (or, “Th[at|is] is called ‘king’”)
We may say: it is sensible for there is only sense in someone's to asking what ˇfor the name is only if he knows already what to dow with it. the name. For [W|w]e can imagine also that the person who is we I have asked, answers, “decide on the give it the a name yourself”, – and then the person whoˇever asked the question I whshould have to make himself responsible for everything catch on to provide everything himmyself. |
To cite this element you can use the following URL:
BOXVIEW: http://wittgensteinsource.com/BTE/Ts-226,20[2]et21[1]_d
RDF: http://wittgensteinsource.com/BTE/Ts-226,20[2]et21[1]_d/rdf
JSON: http://wittgensteinsource.com/BTE/Ts-226,20[2]et21[1]_d/json