Wittgenstein and Sellars on Thinking

Wittgenstein and Sellars on Thinking Stefan Brandt, Oxford, United Kingdom [email protected] When we speak about thoughts and thinking we have to images in order to be more than a mere production of be careful to distinguish three significantly different con- noise, we should imagine that someone carries a colour cepts associated with the terms ‘think’ and ‘thought’. First, chart with her, in which colour-samples are correlated with there are so-called occurrent thoughts; dateable mental their names and which she consults whenever she speaks events constituting the mental activity of thinking. Second, about colours (cf. Wittgenstein 1958, 3). If we are inclined ‘think’ is used in order to express or ascribe the proposi- to believe that the mere production of linguistic signs alone tional attitude of belief. Finally, we use ‘thought’ in a Fre- cannot determine their meaning, than we probably won’t gean sense in which it is roughly equivalent to the techni- think that producing sounds plus handling a colour chart cal term ‘proposition’. In what follows I will be exclusively will do the trick. Colour charts are just another means of occupied with the nature of occurrent thoughts. Accord- representing colours and can be variously applied. The ingly, when I use the words ‘thought’ and ‘thinking’ they defender of the dual-process conception will have to as- should only be understood as referring to occurrent sume that their use has to be accompanied by some fur- thoughts and the mental activity of thinking. ther kind of mental process, let us say speaking to oneself in foro interno. But such an activity, as well, can go on with On one common interpretation the Tractatus logico- or without thought (e.g. when one absent-mindedly recites philosophicus presupposed an account of the nature of a poem in the imagination) which might induce us to postu- occurrent thinking and its relation to language that Witt- late a further mental process and so on ad infinitum. genstein criticized sharply in his later work. According to this account, thinking is a kind of speaking, which consists Whatever parallel process or activity we imagine it of ‘mental signs’ that correspond to the signs of our public does not seem to be any better to determine the meaning language; and the meaningful use of language, whether of our utterances than these utterances themselves. Witt- written or spoken, consists of two parallel processes, op- genstein, therefore, concludes that meaning an utterance erating with signs and mental acts of thinking the senses of or thinking its sense is not a distinct process or activity that these signs. Both of these ideas, the idea of a language of runs parallel to the production of the utterance and is de- thought and what could be called a dual-process concep- tachable from it (cf. Wittgenstein 1953, §339). What distin- tion1 of meaningful speech, Wittgenstein later criticized guishes meaningful from mere parroting speech is that pointedly. only the former has a use (cf. Wittgenstein 1953, §43) in a language game. And what determines whether an utter- The dual-process conception of meaningful speech ance has a use or is a move in a language game is not is quite natural. There seems to be a significant difference something that accompanies the utterance but the manner between the utterances of a competent speaker and the and the circumstances of its occurrence. This is also the squawkings of a parrot, although both might produce ex- reason why it is perfectly coherent to imagine a people actly the same words. The difference, one might be in- who only think out loud (cf. Wittgenstein 1953, §331). clined to say, is due to the fact that only utterances of the former kind are accompanied by acts of thinking, whereas Closely related to the dual-process conception of the latter are a mere production of noise. It is these ac- thought and talk is the idea that the process of thinking companying acts of thinking that make all the difference, occurs in some kind of inner or mental symbolism, in a without them the signs are ‘dead’ (cf. Wittgenstein 1958, language of thought, constituted by mental signs. In a let- 4). This impression is reinforced when we consider the fact ter to Bertrand Russell the young Wittgenstein himself that sometimes we speak with thought and sometimes we appears to have endorsed this idea. There he replies to a think without speech. It seems that in the latter case the query by Russell concerning his conception of thinking that process that accompanies meaningful speech simply goes ‘I don't know what the constituents of a thought are but I on without its overt expression (cf. Wittgenstein 1953, know that it must have such constituents which correspond §§330, 332). The motivating idea behind the dual process to the words of Language’ (Wittgenstein 1979, 130). conception is the belief that signs and utterances are mere physical objects and events and therefore posses no more The problem with this conception of thinking is that it meaning or intentional content than stones, chairs and postulates an inner symbolism or language that has to be claps of thunder. Hence they have to be accompanied by radically unlike any public language or symbolism we some sort of mental process, for example sentences in a know. Whenever someone uses a public language, be it language of thought or mental images. written or spoken, we can always ask what he meant by a certain sign or signs, say some name N that occurred in The problem with this beguiling picture of the role of his speech. And the speaker will usually be able to further thought in meaningful speech is that whatever process we specify what he meant or to whom he referred. This is imagine thought to be, it won’t be able to achieve its sup- radically different in the case of thoughts. Contrary to pub- posed role of endowing otherwise dead signs with ‘life’ or lic utterances which can be identified both as acoustical or meaning. In the Blue Book Wittgenstein asks his reader to visual occurrences and as intentionally contentful speech imagine that we replace the inner process that is supposed acts, acts of thinking cannot be separated from their inten- to give our utterances meaning by an outer activity (cf. tional content. We cannot specify a thought independently Wittgenstein 1958, 3ff, 33ff). If we think that, for example, of what it is a thought about; a thought is individuated by the use of colour words has to be accompanied by mental its intentional content; it is, as Wittgenstein says, the ‘last interpretation’ (Wittgenstein 1958, 34). 1 These terms are taken from Hacker 1990, 318-326. Despite his poignant criticism of the dual-process conception of thought and talk and the idea that thinking 69 Wittgenstein and Sellars on Thinking / Stefan Brandt occurs in an inner symbolism, even the later Wittgenstein lows us to say that utterances and thoughts have the same repeatedly compared thinking to using language (cf. Witt- content, similarly as equivalent statements in different genstein 1953, §§319, 320, 331). It would be interesting to languages share one and the same meaning. When we see whether there is a way of using language as a model ascribe thoughts to a person we are ascribing inner epi- to explain the nature of occurrent thinking, i.e. a way of sodes to her, which are characterized in purely normative- conceiving of a language of thought, which is compatible functional terms and which causally explain her behaviour. with Wittgenstein’s criticisms. The account of occurrent This explanation of human behaviour in terms of thoughts thoughts Wilfrid Sellars first developed in his classic essay is, according to Sellars, similar to the explanation of the Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind (EPM) seems to observable ‘behaviour’ of physical objects in terms of the achieve exactly this. postulates of scientific theories. However, unlike the postulates of scientific theories which can be literally in, i.e. be a Sellars aims in EPM to develop a theory of thinking proper part of, the object whose behaviour is to explained, which retains the, as he calls it, ‘classical’ (Sellars 1963, thoughts are only ‘inner’ in a metaphorical sense, indicat- 177) idea of thoughts as essentially episodic inner occur- ing that they are not directly observable, and are ascribed rences while departing from the classical tradition in sev- to the person as a whole and not to any part of her (cf. eral respects. Firstly, he rejects the Cartesian idea that all Sellars 1968, 169-70). thoughts are, as it were, ‘self-disclosing’, i.e. cannot occur without the subject knowing them to occur. Thoughts, ac- Does Sellars’s elaboration of the analogy between cording to Sellars, are inner occurrences to which the sub- thought and talk avoid the objections Wittgenstein levelled ject has privileged access but which can occur without her against the dual-process conception of meaningful speech being aware of it. Secondly, he sharply distinguishes and the idea that thought is a kind of speech in an inner thoughts from other inner occurrences such as feelings, symbolism? It is quite clear that Sellars doesn’t endorse sensations and mental images. Thirdly, he rejects the idea the dual process conception of meaningful speech. His that self-knowledge is a kind of observation. Unlike obser- explicit aim in EPM is – as we saw – to ‘reconcile the clas- vational knowledge, knowledge of our own thoughts does sical idea of thoughts as inner episodes… which are prop- not involve sensations, such as visual or acoustical im- erly referred to in terms of the vocabulary of intentionality, pressions.

Load more