Hintikka I 264
"To use a word without justification does not mean to use it wrongly. Of course, I do not identify my feeling by criteria, but I use the same expression. >
Use, >
Criteria, >
Interpretation, >
Language.
I 351
"It is to accept the everyday language game. The primitive language game taught to the child needs no justification. Words have meaning only in the flow of life. Instinct is the first, raisonnement the second. There are reasons only in a language game. >
Language game.
- - -
II 78
Ending/Conclusion/Inference/Wittgenstein: the conclusion is the transition from one sentence to another, a transition to the justification of which it is said, for example, that one follows the other. It is quite different from other relationships, where the opposite is always conceivable. The subsequent relationship and similar relationships are internal relationships. What justifies the conclusion is that you see the internal relationship. No final rules are needed to justify the conclusion, because otherwise one still needed a rule, infinite recourse. >
Conclusions.
II 107
Justification/Wittgenstein: a general sentence is not justified by the results, but by the reasons we can give.
Reason: no matter how far the reasons may suffice, they stop before the actual fact comes to light.
II 131
Justification/Natural Laws/Wittgenstein: Natural laws can be justified - rules of grammar cannot. >
Grammar, >
Rules.
II 196
Art/Wittgenstein: what justification is there for a characteristic of an artwork? I do not agree with the answer "something else would cause the wrong effect". >
Art, >
Artworks.
The reasons are further descriptions. The aesthetics are descriptive. What it does is to draw attention to certain characteristics.
II 327
True/False/Truth Value/Wittgenstein: who uses the calculus with true and false? It has no use at all. As a calculus it is boring and useless, the same applies to Russell's calculation. >
Calculus, >
Truth values.
However, it has a justification that may not apply to other logics: the wit of the true/false calculus is that it provides a translation of Russell's calculus. A calculus is only of value if it helps to clarify another. >
Explanation.
II 397
Justification/Documents/Confirmation/Mathematics/Wittgenstein: after realizing that 1000 divided by 3 must lead to 333, is it then a confirmation to calculate it? What does the claim that one calculation confirms the result of another mean?
One could describe something as a method of generating the 17th digit. The latter can be interpreted in all possible ways, but in fact we must not interpret it in all possible ways.
- - -
VI 226
Evidence/Wittgenstein/Schulte: their justification comes to an end: but the end is not that certain sentences immediately make sense to us as true, like seeing, but our action, which lies at the basis of the play of language. (Wittgenstein, On Certainty, § 204). >
Evidence.
Schulte. Because it is action, we cannot rely on a set of rules. >
Rules.
Our rules leave back doors open.
