How does Wittgenstein think of pictures and how would he defend the idea that the sentence ‘Plato fights Socrates’ is a picture of reality?

1 a. How does Wittgenstein think of pictures and how would he defend the idea that the sentence ‘Plato fights Socrates’ is a picture of reality?
How is it that the entire world can be represented in form of pictures and words? This is the foundational question that Wittgenstein’s picture theory of language seems to respond to. At the most basic level, the theory presupposes that the core role of language is to facilitate humans to picture things (Heaton & Groves 9). For example, from hearing the word ‘moonlight’ the immediate picture that comes to mind is a bright moon that is radiating light from the night sky. At the most basic level of Wittgenstein’s theory, associating words with pictures enables us to have an understanding of how the world is formulated. Taking this theory into consideration, ‘Plato fights Socrates’ directly alludes to an imagery of the two great philosophers engaging in a physical combat. The idea that their choice of weapon is a sword cannot be farfetched either. Thus, the pictorial representation of the two sparring figures suffices in representing the phrase ‘Plato fights Socrates’.
However, at a deeper look, the picture and the words do not tell much. Neither are they correlated in any way. They could be related, but this is not necessarily a fact. In this regard, hieroglyphics come to mind. There exists a huge difference in the way hieroglyphics were presented to capture earthly realities and the manner in which modern artwork like the sparing figures seeks to represent the same reality. Whereas hieroglyphics were devoid of words, they still constituted images that represented an aspect of reality. Thus, pictures can have many purposes and not necessarily need to be associated with words in order to make sense. If anything, the picture might not be related to the words in any way. If I want to give a friend directions to the faculty offices, I might as well draw a diagram with the wrong turns, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and mislead the friend to a wrong location. Yet, the picture in the form of a map was supposed to guide my friend to the faculty. Thus, I might be able to depict the faculty directions in the picture but this does not mean following the guidance will essentially lead to the faculty.
In view of the above, Wittgenstein is keen to emphasize the fact that what a picture alludes to is independent of whether or not it constitutes a truthful representation. Like in the instance of the map, or the drawing of the two sparring gentlemen who are holding swords, if indeed the images are misleading of current realities or are downright false, then what do they represent? Wittgenstein introduces the term logical space. What is represented by the picture of the two sparring humans exists in logical space. Logical space can be best understood by making an attempt to perceive the current situation of the world is not the only situation how the world would have come out. For example, if the world was arranged differently, then the faculty would have been placed at the exact place which I had indicated in the diagram to my friend. The world is arranged as is currently and therefore this is not the case.
Wittgenstein provides a serious shift on how we perceive pictures. He opines that the usefulness of a picture is heavily dependent on how the various parts of the picture are put together as opposed to depending on the picture to represent an artistic depiction of current facts (James 7). A picture should however be viewed as mirroring a possible situation. So it is indeed a possibility that the picture represents Plato fighting Socrates. It is for this reason that people can easily tell what is meant by a picture without necessary knowing if the representation therein are false or true. Wittgenstein argues that someone must be in a position to use the word picture in such a way that there exists limited or none material similarity between the situation which it is supposedly depicting and the picture-proposition. The example that Wittgenstein uses is that of an apple. He argues that it should be clear that the word ‘apple’ is not in any way similar to an actual apple. The same scenario plays out in any other part of a proposition and the depicted situation despite how the various parts will be eventually identified.
In Wittgenstein’s later work, he introduced the concept of ‘family resemblance’ in his linguistic philosophy. He introduces this notion in an effort to clarify how rational humans should think about the meaning and sense that is derived from a combination of certain words (Heaton & Groves 79). The linguistic philosopher uses the concept of family resemblance to emphasis how differently a word or a combination of words can be understood – in this case ‘Plato fights Socrates’. An explanation of why Wittgenstein considers this concept to be very crucial in understanding the meaning of words and how they are relatable to pictures will explain why people might not necessary interpret the picture given to mean the exact words ‘Plato fights Socrates’. This section of the easy illustrates the importance of the concept.
In Wittgenstein’s early work, the philosopher had laid emphasis in providing an analytical definition of all the words that existed. As explained prior, he did this in an effort to get an understanding on how language informs the understanding of the world and vice versa. It is towards this endeavor that the picture theory of meaning was developed. Wittgenstein had made a claim that the pictures of what constitutes reality are actually propositions. The propositions only held meaning to the extent that they would lead to certain pictures of reality. Therefore, a statement that can be construed to be informative is that which works like a drawing of its subject. Like in this particular case, the drawing constitutes of two figures that are holding swords against each other in a sparring contest. It is thus feasible to relate the picture to the statement ‘Plato fights Socrates’.
In the earlier years of his philosophical thoughts, this statement would suffice for Wittgenstein. The philosopher was fully convinced that he had indeed addressed the critical problems of philosophy. At some point, Wittgenstein abandoned the discipline in the thought that he had achieved all that was achievable. He proceeded to indulge in other engagements. The ‘theory of meaning’ as expounded in the Tractatus had seemingly addressed all the possible musings that philosophers were likely to indulge in. However, with time and benefit of hindsight and introspection, Wittgenstein realized that his conclusions could indeed be questioned. After all, the theory was not as water tight as he had thought it to be.
Because of a word’s universality in pronunciation, the common underlying perception was that in referred to a specific entity or concept. It is for this reason that at the first instance, following Wittgenstein earlier logic, it becomes difficult to deny the possibility that the picture represents a sword fight between Plato and Socrates. However, the same phrase with the same words can indeed have multiple meanings depending on other contexts that are not necessarily represented by the picture. One word can have a multiplicity of functions. Such is the nature of language especially in the instance where words are the key building blocks. The ambiguity of words can be easily transferable to that of language and therefore a picture cannot be necessarily be presented by certain words even when at the surface this seems to be the case. For example the word ‘beat’ can have multiple meanings. It could mean a physical encounter between two people who do not like each other. Blows and kicks might be exchanged in the course of the encounter. It could also be referring to the harmonious production of musical sounds – such as drum beats or the beat that is obtained from a combination of instruments and adds rhythm to a song. A master could similarly refer to someone who has superiority in expertise. It could also refer to a young person who is yet to achieve the age of majority. So many examples where a word has different meaning and therefore poses a challenge in contextual ambiguity can be discussed. The sense of the word can only be deduced in the presence of its context. Applied to this particular context, when we say ‘Plato fights Socrates’ is could refer to a physical fight as depicted in the picture or other forms of fights that are intellectual in nature and do not necessarily involve arming oneself with a sword. This interpretation, that could as well divorce the phrase from the picture, goes to show how the intellect can be easily held hostage by a surface interpretation of language. Later in his philosophical undertakings, Wittgenstein proceeds to warn his readers about the dangers of this language pitfall.
In view of the above, Wittgenstein proceeded to withdraw his previously held supposition that language is representative to a definite picture of reality. The view had worked in some instances and had come short in others. The view was deemed insufficient in covering the diverse elements of languages such as gestures, multi-purpose words and body language. When the various elements of language were considered to be straightforward, the picture theory could have worked very well. However, elements of language have since changed. It has become subjective, opaque and ambiguous. Hence the concept of ‘family resemblance’ in Wittgenstein’s later language philosophy.
How is it that the entire world can be represented in form of pictures and words? This is the foundational question that Wittgenstein’s picture theory of language seems to respond to. At the most basic level, the theory presupposes that the core role of language is to facilitate humans to picture things. For example, from hearing the word ‘moonlight’ the immediate picture that comes to mind is a bright moon that is radiating light from the night sky. At the most basic level of Wittgenstein’s theory, associating words with pictures enables us to have an understanding of how the world is formulated. Taking this theory into consideration, ‘Plato fights Socrates’ directly alludes to an imagery of the two great philosophers engaging in a physical combat. The idea that their choice of weapon is a sword cannot be farfetched either. Thus, the pictorial representation of the two sparring figures suffices in representing the phrase ‘Plato fights Socrates’.
However, at a deeper look, the picture and the words do not tell much. Neither are they correlated in any way. They could be related, but this is not necessarily a fact. In this regard, hieroglyphics come to mind. There exists a huge difference in the way hieroglyphics were presented to capture earthly realities and the manner in which modern artwork like the sparing figures seeks to represent the same reality. Whereas hieroglyphics were devoid of words, they still constituted images that represented an aspect of reality. Thus, pictures can have many purposes and not necessarily need to be associated with words in order to make sense. If anything, the picture might not be related to the words in any way. If I want to give a friend directions to the faculty offices, I might as well draw a diagram with the wrong turns, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and mislead the friend to a wrong location. Yet, the picture in the form of a map was supposed to guide my friend to the faculty. Thus, I might be able to depict the faculty directions in the picture but this does not mean following the guidance will essentially lead to the faculty.
In view of the above, Wittgenstein is keen to emphasize the fact that what a picture alludes to is independent of whether or not it constitutes a truthful representation. Like in the instance of the map, or the drawing of the two sparring gentlemen who are holding swords, if indeed the images are misleading of current realities or are downright false, then what do they represent? Wittgenstein introduces the term logical space. What is represented by the picture of the two sparring humans exists in logical space. Logical space can be best understood by making an attempt to perceive the current situation of the world is not the only situation how the world would have come out. For example, if the world was arranged differently, then the faculty would have been placed at the exact place which I had indicated in the diagram to my friend. The world is arranged as is currently and therefore this is not the case.
Wittgenstein provides a serious shift on how we perceive pictures. He opines that the usefulness of a picture is heavily dependent on how the various parts of the picture are put together as opposed to depending on the picture to represent an artistic depiction of current facts. A picture should however be viewed as mirroring a possible situation. So it is indeed a possibility that the picture represents Plato fighting Socrates. It is for this reason that people can easily tell what is meant by a picture without necessary knowing if the representation therein are false or true. Wittgenstein argues that someone must be in a position to use the word picture in such a way that there exists limited or none material similarity between the situation which it is supposedly depicting and the picture-proposition. The example that Wittgenstein uses is that of an apple. He argues that it should be clear that the word ‘apple’ is not in any way similar to an actual apple. The same scenario plays out in any other part of a proposition and the depicted situation despite how the various parts will be eventually identified.
In Wittgenstein’s later work, he introduced the concept of ‘family resemblance’ in his linguistic philosophy. He introduces this notion in an effort to clarify how rational humans should think about the meaning and sense that is derived from a combination of certain words. The linguistic philosopher uses the concept of family resemblance to emphasis how differently a word or a combination of words can be understood – in this case ‘Plato fights Scorates’. An explanation of why Wittgenstein considers this concept to be very crucial in understanding the meaning of words and how they are relatable to pictures will explain why people might not necessary interpret the picture given to mean the exact words ‘Plato fights Socrates’. This section of the easy illustrates the importance of the concept.
In Wittgenstein’s early work, the philosopher had laid emphasis in providing an analytical definition of all the words that existed. As explained prior, he did this in an effort to get an understanding on how language informs the understanding of the world and vice versa. It is towards this endeavor that the picture theory of meaning was developed. Wittgenstein had made a claim that the pictures of what constitutes reality are actually propositions. The propositions only held meaning to the extent that they would lead to certain pictures of reality. Therefore, a statement that can be construed to be informative is that which works like a drawing of its subject. Like in this particular case, the drawing constitutes of two figures that are holding swords against each other in a sparring contest. It is thus feasible to relate the picture to the statement ‘Plato fights Socrates’.
In the earlier years of his philosophical thoughts, this statement would suffice for Wittgenstein. The philosopher was fully convinced that he had indeed addressed the critical problems of philosophy. At some point, Wittgenstein abandoned the discipline in the thought that he had achieved all that was achievable. He proceeded to indulge in other engagements. The ‘theory of meaning’ as expounded in the Tractatus had seemingly addressed all the possible musings that philosophers were likely to indulge in. However, with time and benefit of hindsight and introspection, Wittgenstein realized that his conclusions could indeed be questioned. After all, the theory was not as water tight as he had thought it to be.
Because of a word’s universality in pronunciation, the common underlying perception was that in referred to a specific entity or concept. It is for this reason that at the first instance, following Wittgenstein earlier logic, it becomes difficult to deny the possibility that the picture represents a sword fight between Plato and Socrates. However, the same phrase with the same words can indeed have multiple meanings depending on other contexts that are not necessarily represented by the picture. One word can have a multiplicity of functions. Such is the nature of language especially in the instance where words are the key building blocks. The ambiguity of words can be easily transferable to that of language and therefore a picture cannot be necessarily be presented by certain words even when at the surface this seems to be the case. For example the word ‘beat’ can have multiple meanings. It could mean a physical encounter between two people who do not like each other. Blows and kicks might be exchanged in the course of the encounter. It could also be referring to the harmonious production of musical sounds – such as drum beats or the beat that is obtained from a combination of instruments and adds rhythm to a song. A master could similarly refer to someone who has superiority in expertise. It could also refer to a young person who is yet to achieve the age of majority. So many examples where a word has different meaning and therefore poses a challenge in contextual ambiguity can be discussed. The sense of the word can only be deduced in the presence of its context. Applied to this particular context, when we say ‘Plato fights Socrates’ is could refer to a physical fight as depicted in the picture or other forms of fights that are intellectual in nature and do not necessarily involve arming oneself with a sword. This interpretation, that could as well divorce the phrase from the picture, goes to show how the intellect can be easily held hostage by a surface interpretation of language. Later in his philosophical undertakings, Wittgenstein proceeds to warn his readers about the dangers of this language pitfall.
A closer look at family members will reveal so many similarities and yet so many differences in such characteristics like physical features and characterization. Family members are not identical and yet at the same time possess multiple common traits and features. Wittgenstein’s allusion to this resemblance allows words to have some form of freedom in their use and interpretation. Since words can be used in multiple ways, their meaning is similarly interchangeable. So a word like ‘fight’ in ‘Plato fights Socrates’ will have multiple possible applications besides a supposed physical encounter as expressed in the picture. It is for this reason that one commentator argues that Wittgenstein does not hold the claim that sentences are models or pictures that are applicable in every sentence.
(c) And never mind what Wittgenstein thinks, can logically complex sentences built up with truth functional connectives like “not”, “and”, “or”, “if…then…” be considered pictures in his sense?
A notable element of Wittgenstein theory of language concerns how sentences are constructed from other simpler sentences. Wittgenstein refers to such simple sentences as propositions – sentences that are unambiguously either false or true. In reducing a proposition to a picture in a similar manner that is presumed in question 1, our semantic competence must be put into use. A critical semantic component that Wittgenstein identifies is the human capacity to read (Frascolla 12).
Work Cited
Heaton, John & Groves, Judy. Introducing Wittgenstein, Icon Books Ltd, London, 1999. Print.
James, Klagge. Wittgenstein: Biography and Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, London. 2001. Print.
Pasquale, Frascolla. Understanding Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. Routledge, 2007. Print.