43
“What is the relation between
names and
?”
[)| –]
Well, what
is it? Look at
ˇthe our
lang
[au|ua]ge game (
[3|4]), or
ˇat some other
ˇ language game;
you
can that's where you'll see
there what this relation consists
in.
This this relation
may, [a|A]mong various
other things, consist
also in the fact that
hearing the name calls up
an image of the thing
named in our minds,
, and it
ˇsometimes consists
among other things also in
the fact that the name is written on the thing named, or that
is
it uttered when the thing named is
pointed t
[l|o].
But what
does is the word “this”
ˇa name
ˇof in
ˇthe
language game (9), or
26
or
the word
“that” in the ostensive explanation
“th
[at|is] is called …”?
Well, if you don't want to
ˇproduce confusion it is best
not to say that these words name anything.
– And
, curiously
enough
, it was once said of the word
“this” that it is the
real name.
Ever
[e|y]thing else that we call
“name”
is so ˇbeing a
name only in an inexact, appro
[c|x]imate
sense.
This curious view has its origin in a
tendency to sublimate – as we might call it – the logic
of
our language. The proper
answer to it is:
[W|w]e
call widely
different things “names”; the
word “name” character
[s|i]ses many
different
sort[f|s]s kinds of
use
s of
a
word
[,|s], related to
one
another
each in many different ways; – but
among these kinds of
use
s is
not that of the word “this”.
It is true that we often, in
ˇgiving an ostensi[c|v]e
defi[t|n]i[o|t]ion, point to
thing named
and in doing so pronounce
name. And similarly we pronounce in an
ostensive definition the word “this”
as we in
pointing to
thing. And the word “this” and a name
ˇcan often stand in the same
context have the same
syntax |
: we say “Fetch
this”, and also “Fetch
Paul”. – But it is
precisely one of the characteristic features of a name that
is explained by
t[e|h]e demonstrative
“Th[at|is]
is N” (or
“Th[at|is]
is called
‘N’”).
But do we also explain,
“Th[at|is] is called
‘this’”[,|?] or
perhaps even “This is called
‘this’”?