Wittgenstein] writes in philosophical inquiry that the idea that “every word has one meaning” and that “a word names an object” is a fallacy. In the Blue and Brown books, “One of the greatest causes of philosophical puzzlement is here: given a noun, we try to find its counterpart. That is, given a noun, we try to find its counterpart.” It also states.
These words seem to give a specific picture of the nature of human language. In other words, each word in the language names an object - a sentence is a combination of such names. In this image of language, we see the root of the idea that every word has a meaning. This meaning is tied to the word. It is the object to which the word is directed.
This philosophical notion of meaning rests within a primordial conception of the way language works. But it is an idea of language that is more primordial than our language.
We can name things and now we can talk about them. We can involve ourselves in them when we talk about them.” It is as if the act of naming has already given us what we will do thereafter. It is as if there is only one thing to be said about things. Yet we do so many different kinds of things in writing. Consider exclamations alone. They have a completely different function. Water! That way! Wow! Help! Wow! No! Do you still want to say that these words “name the subject”?
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/どの語も一つの意味をもつのか？ using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.