[lbo-talk] Abolition as self-help

[Miles Jackson]

Shane Mage wrote:
>
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Miles Jackson wrote:
>>
>> I like Wittgenstein's solution to this: it's the beetle in the box.
>>
>> Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a 
>> "beetle". No one can look into anyone else's box, and everyone says 
>> he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle. --Here it 
>> would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in 
>> his box. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing. 
>> --But suppose the word "beetle" had a use in these people's language? 
>> --If so it would not be used as the name of a thing. The thing in the 
>> box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a 
>> something: for the box might even be empty. --No, one can 'divide 
>> through' by the thing in the box; it cancels out, whatever it is. 
>> That is to say: if we construe the grammar of the expression of 
>> sensation on the model of 'object and designation' the object drops 
>> out of consideration as irrelevant.
>>
>> Phil Inv, section 293.
>
>
> This seems to be saying that if you report that you feel pain in your 
> right foot it is "irrelevant" whether or not your foot was amputated 
> long ago.  Would your doctor agree?
>
>
>
> Shane Mage 

I've read this response a few times now, and I can't see any connection 
at all between your question and the point Wittgenstein is making.  
Perhaps ask it a different way?

Miles