Topics Philosophers

Question Hi, I can't stop thinking and speculating about Wittgenstein's unbelievable question: "What is left over if I subtract the fact that my arm goes up from the fact that I raise my arm?". I was wondering how you guys speculate and maybe even answer Wittgenstein's question. It appears at least to me that it's a biconditional link which is why it's so interesting. Is there even any difference between the two? What does 'raise' truly mean (which I feel might be the secret to the question)? Is an action [such as raise] only an action if there is some end or fruit to it? Is it possible for a means to have no end?

Accepted:
December 1, 2005

Comments

Wittgenstein's question is a great one to ponder. It seems to me that the distinction between my raising my arm and my arm's rising is that raising my arm is intentional. That is, I raise my arm only if I want to, or decide to, or intend to raise it. But my arm would rise (without my raising it) if I fell into some water that pushed it up. It would also rise (without my raising it) if someone else--say, a hypnotist, or a strong person who grabbed it--intended for it to rise. In such a case, there would be an intentional rising of my arm, but I would not have raised it. So, the difference between my raising my arm and my arm's going up is that the first case--but not in the second case--requires some mental phenomenon on my part. (I am not attributing this answer to Wittgenstein; rather, this answer seems reasonable to me.)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "biconditional link." You can't raise your arm without its going up, but it can go up without your raising it.