Aware of the superiority of semiology over grammatical syntax, Ludwig Wittgenstein was always committed to a use of language that does not distance the thought.
As language is the main medium of thought (at least for now), the narrator – verbal representation of thought – must be extremely careful while choosing his words, in order to express, and that in a unique way, the idea he conceived .
One of the methods developed by Ludwig Wittgenstein, to highlight the problem of ambiguity, is the study of language games.
This allowed him to proceed with the matter, due to a series of unambiguous sentences – charged with meaning – forming a structured isomorphic format with a mental image.
Indeed, it’s reader – if he has a sufficiently abstract spirit – gets a spherical capture of the theme of the presentation without getting lost in a labyrinth of misinterpretations, which produce a non reflective article.
As pointed out by Thomas Riepe (Wittgenstin’s thinking), Ludwig Wttgenstein didn’t choose to improve his weakest point (errors of syntax), but to develop his strongest point (the power of semiotics through a prototype and innovative unity).
A critical choice to create his work.
We further believe that, the choice is general. Indeed, one should dedicate his creativity in what he does best.
Let’s now penetrate to the problem raised by Machteld Vos de Wael (Image-thinking), in the context of a specific problematic about language and image in the works of Wittgenstein.
It is, somehow clear that there is no obvious distinction between these two aspects of his thought.
His project indicates in an efficient manner, how his thought is built based on the combination of the two.
It is true that the language may seem, at first, as a one-dimensional form of thought, while the image is multidimensional.
However, even if that statement is true, it wouldn’t indicate an hierarchy in thought pro the image.
Indeed, in the extreme case of mathematics it is very common to approach problems through these two perspectives (language: combinatorial and picture: geometry).
Depending on the nature of the problem, one of these two options is more effective than the other.
The accuracy of the original proposal of the previous paragraph, would have been attributed to the following assumption: the primacy of the space or the cross-sectional view.
But why could we not see that language hides within it,chronical dimensions much more so than those of an image and therefore is richer in a temporal level. A known phenomenon of test creators, as oral tests require, in order to be solvable, the crystallized intelligence, while others support a fluent intelligence.
If anyone however, notices the image and the language in the cognitive space-time, their role is double.
It is more so noteworthy that this concept is embodied in the language .
Indeed, at least in French and Greek, in order to express the word ‘understand’, we can use both the word ‘”comprehend” and the word ‘I see’.
It is true that everyone of us, has not only a purely cognitive function, but also a character, that undoubtedly affects the choice of solving strategies.
However, we are even more powerful (brainpower), when we are able – with a conscious process of a synthesis – to utilize in the full extent all the tools obtained by our thinking.