01c. 1920 ADIt is obvious that an imagined world, however different it may be from the real one, must have something - a form - in common with it.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
02c. 1920 ADUttering a word is like striking a note on the keyboard of the imagination.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
03c. 1920 ADThe philosophical I is not the man, not the human body or the human soul of which psychology treats, but the metaphysical subject, the limit - not a part of the world.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
04c. 1920 ADThe gramophone record, the musical thought, the score, the waves of sound, all stand to one another in that pictorial internal relation, which holds between language and the world.To all of them the logical structure is common.(Like the two youths, their two horses and their lilies in the story. They are all in a certain sense one.)Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
05c. 1920 ADFor remember that in general we don't use language according to strict rules-- it hasn't been taught to us by means of strict rules, either. We, in our discussions on the other hand, constantly compare language with a calculus preceding to exact rules.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
06c. 1920 ADTelling someone something he does not understand is pointless, even if you add that he will not be able to understand it.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
08c. 1920 ADLanguage disguises the thought; so that from the external form of the clothes one cannot infer the form of the thought they clothe, because the external form of the clothes is constructed with quite another object than to let the form of the body be recognized.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
09c. 1920 ADIt is not humanly possible to gather immediately from it what the logic of language is. Language disguises thought.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
11c. 1920 ADIf we spoke a different language, we would perceive a somewhat different world.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
13c. 1920 ADThe silent adjustments to understand colloquial language are enormously complicated.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
14c. 1920 ADOne interesting thing is the idea that people have of a kind of science of Aesthetics. I would almost like to talk of what could be meant by Aesthetics.You might think Aesthetics is a science telling us what's beautiful - almost too ridiculous for words. I suppose it ought to include also what sort of coffee tastes well. I see roughly this - there is a realm of utterance of delight, when you taste pleasant food or smell a pleasant smell, etc., then there is a realm of Art which is quite different, though often you may make the same face when you hear a piece of music as when you taste good food. (Though you may cry at something you like very much.)Supposing you meet someone in the street and he tells you he has lost his greatest friend, in a voice extremely expressive of his emotion. You might say: 'It was extraordinarily beautiful, the way he expressed himself.' Supposing you then asked: 'What similarity has my admiring this person with my eating vanilla ice and like it?' To compare them seems almost disgusting. (But you can connect them by intermediate cases.) Suppose someone says 'But this is a quite different kind of delight.' But did you learn two meanings of 'delight'? You use the same word on both occasions. There is some connection between these delights. Although in the first case the emotion of delight would in our judgement hardly count.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
16c. 1920 ADThe great delusion of modernity, is that the laws of nature explain the universe for us. The laws of nature describe the universe, they describe the regularities. But they explain nothing.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
17c. 1920 ADRoughly speaking: to say of two things that they are identical is nonsense, and to say of one thing that it is identical with itself is to say nothing.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
18c. 1920 ADIf someone does not believe in fairies, he does not need to teach his children 'There are no fairies'; he can omit to teach them the word 'fairy'.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
19c. 1920 ADIf you have a room which you do not want certain people to get into, put a lock on it for which they do not have the key. But there is no point in talking to them about it, unless of course you want them to admire the room from outside! The honorable thing to do is put a lock on the door which will be noticed only by those who can open it, not by the rest.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
20c. 1920 ADIt is now how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it (the world) exists at all.....Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
21c. 1920 AD476. Children do not learn that books exist, that armchairs exist, etc.,etc. - they learn to fetch books, sit in armchairs, etc.,etc.Later, questions about the existence of things do of course arise, "Is there such a thing as a unicorn?" and so on. But such a question is possible only because as a rule no corresponding question presents itself. For how does one know how to set about satisfying oneself of the existence of unicorns? How did one learn the method for determining whether something exists or not?477. "So one must know that the objects whose names one teaches a child by an ostensive definition exist." - Why must one know they do? Isn't it enough that experience doesn't later show the opposite?For why should the language-game rest on some kind of knowledge?478. Does a child believe that milk exists? Or does it know that milk exists? Does a cat know that a mouse exists?479. Are we to say that the knowledge that there are physical objects comes very early or very late?Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
22c. 1920 ADI give no sources, because it is indifferent to mewhether what I have thought has already beenthought before me by another.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
23c. 1920 ADIt is difficult to describe paths of thought where there are already many paths laid down, and not fall into one of the groovesLudwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
24c. 1920 ADPhilosophy should make clear and delimit sharply the thoughts which otherwise are, as it were, opaque and blurred.Ludwig Wittgenstein / quote ↗
