2 responses

  1. Ah, yes — it’s as if words get between us and the tactile feel of things, as if language were the menu and the taste of the soup, the real thing. But some strings of words are as tactile as things, and there’s nothing under them that could be the thing tasted. But so often we DO, in distraction, settle for the menu.

  2. I’m lost as to how philosophy which proceeds from ordinary language responds (if it responds) to the contemporary physicists who can only make sense of their empirical data by appeal to ontology (e.g. non-locality or configuration space). If the physicists use a language (game) that’s like a calculus, designed to deliver us, maybe not to things, but to, say, the ground of particles, or to that which is more elemental than particles, then does OLP intervene?

%d bloggers like this: