I try to clarify the ways in which one would seek to hold that language and/or thought are public. For each of these theses, I distinguish four forms in which they can be framed, and two ways of establishing them. The first will try to make the publicity of thought follow from that of language; the second will try to make the publicity of language follow from that of thought. I show that none of these strategies can do without the thesis that language and thought are interdependent, and that even while admitting this thesis, the second strategy presents more difficulties than the first.
The sceptical problem of Kripkenstein pertains to both the notions of content of thought and linguistic meaning in such a way that if the sceptical solution allowed us to conclude that language is essentially public, then we should also be able to conclude that thought is essentially public. But, when addressing the question of the way in which one could, under this hypothesis, reach the conclusion that thought is essentially public, there would seem to be two possible types of answers. The first one is that this follows from the fact that language is a necessary condition of thought, thus: there is no thought without language, but there can be no language without there being more than one speaker, hence there can be no thought without there being more than one thinker. The second answer (which does not exclude the first) is that we should then be able to formulate a version of the sceptical solution which applies directly to the question of knowing under which conditions one is justified in judging that someone has a certain thought, and that that thought is correct. But if an answer of this second type were possible, it would perhaps no longer be necessary to rely on the sceptical solution in order to conclude that language is public, for in all likelihood, this conclusion would follow from the fact that thought is public, together with the idea that thought is a necessary condition of language, thus: there is no language without thought, but there can be no thought without there being more than one thinker, hence there can be no language without there being more than one speaker. Hence, there seems to be at least three different ways in which one could try to reach the two desired conclusions.
The mighty river flows through the mountains with liquidity and nurture providing life for all those who wish to take a sip from it. Yet the river is powerful in its own force destroying even the largest rocks, crumbling them into small pieces. People may be able to stop the river for a short time or even dry it up but the water always comes back in one form or another, every dam is bound to fail. Some people have been able to harness the power of the river, redirecting the mighty water making it flow in constructive ways. Similar to the river, language is influential. Its true power is not seen by the naked eye but by those who study it, those who use it as their ally in a war of linguistics. In Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter, Birmingham City Jail he is able to use all three rhetorical appeals to prove that demonstrations lead to negotiations and benefit for both sides of an argument.
To the members of the support group Naïve People who are Addicted to Mass media and Believe Anything They Hear or Read Anonymous my purpose of being here today is to help you better understand how to analyze the mass media you come across. Mass media is the news, newspapers, magazines, the radio, and the television. The way I’m going to analyze it, is by rhetorical analysis. Rhetoric is how effective the writer is in persuading the reader by using speech and compositional techniques. In order for you to be able to become more apprehensive when reading information, I will be analyzing the ad for Vitaminwater featuring Kobe Bryant. Vitaminwater was introduced in 1996. It is a mineral water that is given out by Energy Brands. Like many sports drinks they use famous athletes to speak for them and promote them. Vitaminwater’s ad with Kobe Bryant is successful because it persuades people to buy their product because it’s, “The Most Valuable Power.”
ABSTRACT: In what follows, I give (following Burton Dreben) a dialectical reading of his dismissal of metaphysics and of Wittgenstein's objections to Russell in 1913. I argue that Wittgenstein must be read as advocating no particular theory or doctrine — that is, philosophy is an activity and not a body of truths. Furthermore, this insistence is thoroughgoing. Put differently, a dialectical reading must be applied to one's own thought and talk. Characteristically, this sort of dialectical philosophy begins with the question, Is there any definiteness to what I am doing in my own thinking and speaking? Such a question undercuts the easy assumption that what we are doing may be expressed in a body of meaningful statements. In particular, I argue that Wittgenstein does not advocate any particular theory of language. A common reading of Wittgenstein is that he aims to prevent us from misusing language. This view assumes that, for Wittgenstein, the notion of a correct, acceptable or meaningful use of language may be taken for granted. In my view, Wittgenstein does not take the notions of use of language and grammar and its misuse for granted. For Wittgenstein grammar underdetermines what it is to use or misuse language. I argue that an ethical critique is implicit in Wittgenstein's objections to any attempt to speak a priori about language and thought.
...g the superior, white-Americans. This proves ethnic-Americans must work twice as hard and twice as longer to be somewhat equal to white-Americans.
Sherry Turkle’s article in The New York Times “The Flight From Conversation”, she disputes that we need to put down the technology and rehabilitate our ability to converse with other human beings because we are replacing deep relationships with actual people for casual encounters on technology. Turkle tries to convince young and middle age individuals who are so enthralled by the technology that they are losing the ability to communicate in a public setting. Sherry Turkle unsuccessfully persuades her audience to put down the technology and engage with others in public through her strong logos appeal that overpowers her weak logos and doesn’t reliably represent herself and her research.
To examine various discourses, it is crucial that the idea of discourse and the way in which discourses operate is clear. A discourse is a language, or more precisely, a way of representation and expression. These "ways of talking, thinking, or representing a particular subject or topic produce meaningful knowledge about the subject" (Hall 205). Therefore, the importance of discourses lies in this "meaningful knowledge," which reflects a group’s ideolo...
In his book, The Language of Thought, Jerry Fodor claims that i) Wittgenstein’s private language argument is not in fact against Fodor’s theory, and ii) Wittgenstein’s private language argument “isn’t really any good” (70). In this paper I hope to show that Fodor’s second claim is patently false. In aid of this I will consider Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations (243-363), Jerry Fodor's The Language of Thought (55-97), as well as Anthony Kenny’s Wittgenstein (178-202). First I shall summarize Wittgenstein’s argument; then I will examine Fodor’s response and explain why it is fallacious. In my view, Fodor is wrong because he takes Wittgenstein to be a verificationist, and also because he makes a false analogy between people and computers.
For starters I would like to high light that I do not agree with organ trade, I absolutely detest it. To save a life by giving an organ is a good thing but selling it develops problems. Selling organs is very immoral because it allows our vital organs to be sold like a piece of crap. I do not see how legalization is okay, because no one should want to have their body part(s) sold on the market as though they are an item. However, I do support giving organs for great causes and maybe, giving it to science. Those are fairly acceptable things and they can become beneficial to science and people in need. In recent studies I found that “People who sell their kidneys receive a small amount for their donation, after all the majority goes to whomever is the broker i...
I believe that people over the age of 75 should not be allowed to drive without taking an agility test. Those who do not pass this test have their driver’s license taken away from them. Initially all beginning drivers are required to take an agility test along with an eye exam before we are issued a driver’s license. As we age our vision and agility skills may diminish. Therefore all elderly drivers should be have to take an agility test in order to keep this license.
Rhetoric is the art of effective speaking or writing, and persuasion. Most people use rhetoric numerous of times in their everyday life without their concern or knowing.
language can allow us to communicate an exact idea or to persuade others to one
In conclusion, although there are some valid reasons to support the creation of an organ market based on the principles of beneficence and autonomy, there are also many overriding reasons against the market. Allowing the existence of organ markets would theoretically increase the number of organ transplants by living donors, but the negative results that these organ markets will have on society are too grave. Thus, the usage of justice and nonmaleficence as guiding ethical principles precisely restricts the creation of the organ market as an ethical system.
Kendra, C. (2011)’ Leadership Theories - 8 Major Leadership Theories’ [online], available: http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/p/leadtheories.htm [accessed 14 April 2013]
“There are no facts, only interpretations”, said famous French philologist Friedrich Nietzsche on the topic of deconstruction. It is this quote that we are opened into the world of deconstruction, a world where “language doesn’t reflect or convey our world but constitutes a world of its own”. Deconstructionists believe that language is the barrier that forces thoughts to lose their purpose. The moment you share an idea from the inner workings of your mind, whether it be written or spoken, is the moment the idea is lost in translation. In order to understand deconstruction, one mu...
The study of semiotics shows that language is the primary mediator in the construction of reality. All systems of signification are dependent on language, and the development of subject position is determined through the act of speaking. (footnote 2) In a discussion of language functions, Fredric Jameson d...