Ordinary language is all right.
One could divide humanity into two classes:
those who master a metaphor, and those who hold by a formula.
Those with a bent for both are too few, they do not comprise a class.
Steak and eggs, Brussels sprouts.
Whitman's 'lump character'.
What's the risk in making a philosophical argument? In believing in one?
'vigorous, yet unsuspected Literatures'
A there that's here. A there that can be everywhere.
Dylan's 'House Carpenter'.
The interlocutor's question about the shopkeeper is a skeptical one: 'But how does he know…?'.
Wittgenstein's response stresses that, or how, the shopkeeper acts, as if to say, this is not a matter of knowing, but of just doing. But it also contains a curious clause: 'I assume that he acts', Wittgenstein says, 'as I have described'. But could it be any other way? Taking the stress off 'acts' for the moment, what he is saying seems to affirm the natural—usual, obvious—connection between what the shopkeeper does, and what Wittgenstein says the shopkeeper does—between the shopkeeper's behavior and Wittgenstein's description of it. Wittgenstein affirms the ordinary adequacy of our words to their objects.
Could it be any other way?