Belief and Truth: Ludwig’s Thesis vs. Personal Experience
Ludwig Wittgenstein muses over how a truth is simply a truth and should not be masked by language that detract from the initial meaning of a report or message. He states the example: if it is raining, it is raining. Saying that one “believes” it is raining deems unnecessary because it cannot be a belief if the belief has been debunked. People are uncomfortable with stating a truth, even if it is true, because one’s senses can be misleading or inaccurate. One’s beliefs, however, can never be incorrect because who is one to say what a person should or should not believe in? Belief acts as a pillow or a safe haven in which truth is thus thrown into and loses credibility and becomes less a truth and more of a theory. Same thing applies to Wittgenstein’s pictorial references; one either initially sees something or they don’t. Saying “now I see so-and-so” does not truly validate that what one is saying is what one actually sees. Using language as a cushion-pillow and safety net allows for more deliberation room. To simply say “this is this” and involving logic to close the truth leaves no more room for debate. So what is better? To leave the message open with a “language-game” as Ludwig calls it, or to demystify the concept by applying the truth and nothing but the truth? It depends on however the message is contributed because the way of its contribution reflects the personality of the contributee.
When handling typography, looking at a word for such a long time then takes away the meaning of the word and then brings focus to the shapes and visual elements. This can also be applied to material items. For example, the other day I absent-mindedly sat on my couch and stared at a cup for quite some time. After a while, it was no longer a cup. It was a form—an entity—that took up space in its cylindrical form. But to look at it logistically, it was still a cup. Even if the air and space around it began...