Replies

With respect, that quote from Wittgenstein is out of context and the general premise of this paper is entirely contrary to Wittgenstein's work, which holds (oversimplifying horribly here) that there is an inextricable link between how we speak of the world and how we think of it; that the structure of language mirrors the structure of reality itself (in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus he goes even further but backs off a bit in his later work, such as the footnoted but not cited Philosophical Investigations. Quine and some of the other University of Chicago philosophers have explored this facet of philosophy well past my humble understanding.

The Tractatus understands thought and language as essentially ways of representing the world and then investigates how they represent in accordance with two basic premises: (1) that representation is only possible by means of underlying structural identities; and (2) that these structures must be in the logical form of possibilities of existence and non-existence....the "representable" side of sense experience belongs to the form of the world, while the non-representable side is the unsayable content, which has no place in language.

(Henry Finch, Wittgenstein, the Early Philosophy)

If you do wish to explore the "direct reference" school of linguistic philosophy as opposed to the Fregean treatment of the matter, I'd recommend an older book, Nathan Salmon's Reference and Essence, 1981, Princeton University Press.

Or you can do as I do and reread Gay Caballeros in Bondage. Wittgenstein probably did...

With all due respect, the entire branch of philosophy dealing with the thought process of the human brain is inherently and irreparably flawed.

The conclusions reached in the logical analyses of thought omit a critical premise: Because every human being thinks, each individual is naturally biased by the way he (or she) personally experiences intellect and emotion.

The critical importance of this inconclusion of this premise can be seen upon further analysis. Given that (1)each human body experiences sensations in different proportions relative to its other sensations. (2) The neural net of each human brain has been forged by individual life experiences, nutrition and environmental factors. and (3) the human brain is designed from a wide range of genetic and cultural factors, mathematically one may reasonably calculate that there would be very slim odds of two humans thinking exactly the same way.

We can then conclude that there is essentially a "fingerprint" of sensation and logical processing that is unique to each individual.

Furthermore, since thought, like emotion, is universally experienced, if not by all of mankind, then at least by all those participating in this philosophical discussion, there is currently no one (including Wittgenstein) truly impartial enough to determine how "people" in general actually think.