Imago writes: "I am not sure I understand your criticism of Wittgenstein . From what I can surmise from the passage you quoted (i do not have the Investigations at hand), he is arguing precisely against the kind of position you hold."
I don't think LW is rejecting the entire Augustinian view of language-learning. LW's position is that that view is all right as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough - it leaves too much unaccounted for; language is often used with an intent in the user's mind that is beyond simply hoping to stir a simple image in the listener's mind. I'll quote from your translation of LW: "One can say that this ostensive teaching of words creates an associative connection between word and thing. But what is that? Well, it may mean different things, but one can certainly conceive that an image of the thing passes before the mind's eye of the child, when the child hears the right word. But if that now occurs, is that the GOAL of the word? Of course it CAN be, and I can imagine such a use of words (series of sounds)." You write: "Wittgensteins remarks do seem to offer a fair characterization of your position, and a criticism of it. What exactly do you think is wrong here? What does he say that misses your point?" In my last posting I tried to suggest some ways I feel LW went wrong -- e.g. attributing the speaker's purpose/goal to the tool he uses to achieve the goal. I'd love to go through LW's PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS line by line, agreeing and disagreeing, but I know I don't have the time. It would take a book to do that. And since I think his most basic positions are flatly wrong, I don't feel too guilty about passing over him. I'd rather spend my time doing what I'll megalomaniacally term "creative" work. Like every other deluded philosopher before me, I think I'm on the right track, but I'm aware there's a lot of track in front of me. For example, LW (and Michael Brady and you) have expressed doubts about how my "it's all association" theory can account for conceiving of and communicating abstract "bits of consciousness". I hinted at this by pointing out how a young child eventually "gets your abstract idea" when you say "No!" or "Good boy!", but there's lots more to do.
