But it doesn't seem to be that case here. — dimosthenis9

Yes, indeed.

Thank you for your response.

He is reflecting on the nature of knowledge. — Wayfarer

This may be true. It is what @Antony Nickles called "facts".

There's no benefit in imagining unexplainable things; of which this is oddly an example or not. — Cheshire

I don't think I mentioned anything about imagining things ... Such things would not be part of my world. Part of my wolrd are only things that I can experience, that are real to me..

Thank you @Corvus for your repsonse.

It just means that outside of the proper linguistic world, there are many metaphysical objects such as afterlife, God, free will, infinities ... etc, in which clear and meaningful linguistic communication is not possible due to the limitation of language. — Corvus

Right. Physical or metaphysical and non-physical things that have a meaning for us, we can recognize them as such, etc. are part of our world, even if we have a difficulty in communicating them to other persons, due to the limitation of our language.

you still must know how to use the computer i.e. power it on, and login and start your apps or internet browsers to work it. — Corvus

These things refer to everyday are actions, a lot of them even done mechanically. In some of them you don'et even have to know the actual words of the things with which you perform these actions. E.g. You may have absolutely no idea what a browser is; you can just call it by the general name "program". Most people don't know what Internet actually is. For them it is kind of "world" or "space" somewhere out there, in which you can search and find things, read documents, watch moviews, hear songs, and all that beautiful stuff. IT language plays a minimal role in performing all these actions. From the moment you are "connected" to a virtual world that you can recognize as your real world, you only need to know the language of that world, as you do in real life.

These are skills that have nothing / very little to do with linguistic capabilities unless you are writing instruction booklets for them. — Corvus

Right. So, should I then conclude that you generally agree with my position? Or have I missed something that supports Wittgenstein's position, namely, that language does indeed limit our world?

Well, first, we cannot take one line out of context and imagine that we can understand it without projecting our own concerns. — Antony Nickles

Thank you very much for your response. This is indeed true and a few have already brought it up. And since I don't know the context, I asked if someone could explain the statement and present a view that would invalidate my examples, which show that at least as it is, this statement cannot stand in real life. However, all those who (correctly mentioned the need of "context") have not such a context ready but only suggest to study the whole or part of Wittgenstein's work where this statement appears. This is not how it works, though. If the words themselves in a statement or even a short and direct explanation of it cannot show its truth then, wouldn't Wittgenstein himself say, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"?

'm guessing when you say "much more than words", you would agree that Wittgenstein is not saying that there are ONLY words, but just that the limits are what can be EXPRESSED in language ("logic" here) I think we can also agree that the sense of the word "world" that you are using includes your claim that even what cannot be expressed in words is part of the "world" (more "exists"); some people call this non-verbal, or pre-linguistic, or even objective.. — Antony Nickles

I agree. Good point!

1) Does it mean that a baby, for whom language does not even exist at all, has no world, i.e. nothing exists for him/her? No pleasure in sucking milk? No sense of the warmth of his/her mother hug? No intimate connection with her? No recognition of objects? And so on ...
— Alkis Piskas
Yes, that is what Witt is working from; the world does not exist for them as yet. Witt is not discussing feelings or experiences, but facts "1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things." This is to also to close off "thoughts" as an internal state of affairs. He is requiring a criteria of logic--everything else is off the table, e.g. ethics, aesthetics, poetry, etc. — Antony Nickles

Oh, this becomes really good!

2) If I see an object for the first time and I don't know how it is called, does this mean that I have no reality at all about that object, i.e., the object doesn't exist for me?
— Alkis Piskas

Sort of, yes--you would be able to express something about it, yes? This is not a claim about objects or making a claim to a fact about everything ("the world" as you are taking it)--that the object does not "exist" in the sense that it is nothing. So, yes, the inner workings of a computer or car also do not exist for that person. This is not to say that the world is dependent on the subject, but that he is pushing a different idea of the "world" and its "existence". Now, why? and do we disagree with that cause? are deeper questions than to fight with a philosopher from your own terms and understanding (beliefs/opinions). — Antony Nickles

All this is fine too!

@Antony Nickles, thanks again. I was really glad to read such a response! In fact, I was looking something like this when I created the topic. :up:

BTW, what's your relation with Socrates? :wink:

Thank you for your response. I have not read only a little about the context but I admit I have not read Wittgenstein's whole work in which this statement is made. I just tried to apply this statement in real life. And it doesn't work for me. And that was the purpose of my topic: to find out, from people who know better, what does this mean to them. And, according to some other view, my examples cannot stand. Now, if this is not easy, it means that the words themselves in this statement cannot show its truth because thay are not enough, and in such a case, wouldn't Wittgenstein himself say, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"?

(BTW, Now, since you seem to know about the context and Wittgenstein in general, maybe you also know if it is true that he negated this statement himself at later in his life? (I have read about it somewhere but I cannot trace it back ... @Shawn also talks about it in here.)

@Banno, maybe you misundertood my intention on creating this topic. I din't critisize Wittgenstein. In fact I said I was surprised in reading it. Therefore, I didn't expect a criticism. I wanted to hear views about the statement. Indeed, I ended my description with "I would really like to hear your opinion on all this". So you could just offer yours ...

The statement cannot be understood without understanding how he draws the limits of "my world". — Fooloso4

This is true. I fact, we also have to understood what exactly he meant by "limits of my language".
You have brought up a lot of thoughts (which I guess are attributed to Wittgenstein?) And they do offer for study. Maybe then one would place the statement in question in the right perspective. Bit we don't know this and then it would mean that the words themselves used in this statement are unable to express its truth. Even if there existed a much shorter and more direct explanation of the statement than what you have brought up, Wittgenstein himself would have said "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"!

Thank you for your response. Your thoughts make sense to me.

I can't otherwise explain that such a great mind as Wittgenstein would make such a "shallow" statement(mistake) as you say. — dimosthenis9

I thought that too. That's why I believe that he most probably has refuted this statement himself at some point later in his life.
But, anyway, saying that a prominent person said this and that so it can't be wrong, etc., is not philosophising. It cannot replace personal judgement. Philosophy involves personal judgement, reasoning and critical thinking. This is why I created this topic: to see what people have to say about it.

Would a professional writer have done better - vocabulary, style, etc. - if you'd asked faer to write your post for you? — TheMadFool

I used a simple and comprehensible language and I think my desciption of the topic is very clear. A professional writer, even just someone whose mother tongue is English, could have improved the wording, but this has nothing to do with the present case.

It is a good question what 'the limits of language' are and would it be if someone's mental state deteriorated so much as, for example, in dementia. Or, we could be talking about a heightened state of consciousness, where a person in unable to describe the ineffable, as in mystical states. — Jack Cummins

Right. In either case the person has certainly a "world" (reality). It doesn't matter if he cannot share it with others. It's maybe why Wittgenstein suggests that "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." ... (Yet, this does not validate his statement under discussion.)

Just what is or what does it mean to be at the limits of one's language? — Shawn

I guess it means the richness of one's vocabulary. Also, the degree to which I can express, describe or explain somethimg in words.

Thanks you for your response. This is certainly quite an interesting. But maybe from a point of view that is not so real for most of us (in the West).

Thank you for your comment!
All that is quite plausible. Indeed, we should not take the statement literally but give it some interpretation margins. Yet, it sounds quite concrete. That's why, I should maybe limit my questions to a single one, that of the "baby" example, which is by itself refutes totally the statement in question.
I have an idea that Wittgensteinhimself himself must have re-examined it at some point later in his life and was not very happy with it.
And this concerns another topic I though of creating: One should not always cling to quotes-statements of prominent persons because they may have been stated under specific conditions or even refuted at a later time.

Can you give me a reply to my comment at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/574924?
I am interested in your opinion.
Thank you

Is it permissible to do something on someone else's behalf because one has a notion that "most people" would "want this"? — schopenhauer1

First, I will assume that by "permissible" (too general) you mean "moral".

Now, independently of whether you mean "on someone else's behalf" literally or just "to someone else", acting on the principle or justification that "most people would want this" indicates that you don't have or cannot use your own ethical/moral principles. Acting on the basis of "what others would do in my place" indicates lack of ethical/moral integrity and irresponsibility. You should be able to act according to what you believe is right or wrong, good or bad, and accept the consequences of your actions.

Most people accept the killing of animals and the eating of animal flesh. Now, if you are a vegetarian (for moral, religious or health reasons), are you acting on the basis of what "most people" want, do or think? Certainly not. It would not be ethical/moral from your part, would it? That is, you would violate your ethical/moral principles and break your Integrirty.

Part of the Zen philosophy is about "living in the moment" — HardWorker

"Living in the moment" is not part of anything, Zen or other philosophy. It is a principle held by the various Buddhist schools (of which Zen is one) and other philosophies. You can even find it in "schools" of modern psychology! Therefore, it is evident that it is interpreted in different ways. Your example with the strawberry, is one of the interpretations, that can be classified under such "mottos" as "Enjoy the moment", "Benefit from the moment", and similar. And. althouh such an attitude may be useful in some caces, I consider it, in general, as shallow, unintelligent and irresponsible. Its implications may be even catastrophic. The person hanging over the edge of a cliff would have better think about how he would be saved than enjoying a strawberry, as metaphorical this action as it may be.

So, the above is one of the interpretations of "living in the moment". Another one, which I find the most important and valuable is what is called "Living in the NOW". Not in the past, not in the future, but in the present. This state is characterized mainly by observation and expanded awareness. You are not doing this in order to enjoy anything, although joy, happiness and even serenity may well accompany it. You are doing this, in the first place, for letting sorrow, pain, anger and other negative emotions influencing your life. And with time, you are not even doing it: it just occurs by itself. "Living in the NOW" was one of the main principles that Krushnamurti was teaching --actually, transmitting-- to people. Of course, he was not the only one. Eckhart Tolle and Dalai Lama, among other, are strong proponents of this principle.

The only thing that I can say with some certainty is that they seem to be proportional.
— Alkis Piskas

That would suggest they are related and therefore not totally different. — Kenosha Kid

Creativity and imagination are proportional to intelligence. But they are all different things.
Heat and temperature are directly proportional. But they are two different things.
...

Topic:Is intelligence levels also levels of consciousness?

BTW, shouldn't maybe the title of your topic be corrected to "Are intelligence levels also levels of consciousness?

Does different levels of intelligence mean different levels of consciousness and self-awareness? — Maximum7

1) I don't think there are levels of either intelligence or consciousness. (Maybe only some exotic theories here and there about levels/stages of consciousness.)
2) Intelligence and consciousness are two totally different things. (I won't get into describing their difference; there are plenty of references on this.)

The only thing that I can say with some certainty is that they seem to be proportional. But I don't know of any studies done on this subject. And, if there were, they would have been done by scientists (psychologists, neuroscientists, etc.) who consider that both intelligence and consciousness are products of the brain, i.e. material in nature. And I wouldn't care about something of this sort.

OK. Thanks, @DingoJones!

OK, thanks.
How then can one "upvote" a post (topic or comment)? Just upvote, w/o replying/commmenting.

Thanks.

Dont worry about it, it just brings a post to mod attention so they will have seen my flagged post and most likely ignore the flag after reading the post and seeing no rules breaches. — DingoJones

Thanks. That's better!
Now, since, as I understand, you are a moderator, how can one upvote a post (topic or comment)? I mean just upvote, w/o replying/commenting.

The flag is used to bring a post to the attention of a moderator, for when you notice someone breaking forum rules. — DingoJones

Ah, finally! Thanks. So it is a "bad" thing, i.e. a report on something considered bad!
I clicked on it only to see what it is and hopefully upvote your post. I expected to be asked something and be able to cancel it if it was a mistake! And the effect was the opposite! And it was too late. I couldn't "unflag" it! Horrible! They don't even mention anything about flagging anywhere! What administration is this?
Can you tell me please how can I remove/cancel this stupid and false flagging?
Thanks again.

We just get a message that the post has been flagged. That's it. — Baden

Thanks. But ... Flagged for what purpose? To indicate what? Who sees the flagging and what does it mean to him/her? If, onthe other hand, is just a kind of "bookmark", how can I find it back?

Nowadays we know very well, that the study of the human psyche is done through psychology. — Shawn

It is quite ironic that the words Psychology and Psychiatry are based on the ancient Greek word "psyche", which means "soul". Yet, Psychology nor Psychiatry do not even believe in the existence of soul (spirit)! There's only a brain for them. All material. Nothing spiritual, religious or philosophical. So mind, soul and spirit are all still in the hands of other fields (philosophy and religion).

Since the dawn of philosophy with Socrates, ... — Shawn

The dawn of philosophy is much earlier than Socrates. A lot of great and well known philosophers, called "Pre-Socratic", existed before him, and their philosophy is classified as "pre-Socratic philosophy"

- Thales of Miletus – l. c. 585 BC
- Anaximander – l. c. 610 - c. 546 BC
- Anaximenes – l. c. 546 BC
- Pythagoras – l. c. 571 - c. 497 BC
- Xenophanes of Colophon – l. c. 570 - c. 478 BC
- Heraclitus of Ephesus – l. c. 500 BC
- Parmenides – l. c. 485 BC
- Zeno of Elea – l. c. 465 BC
(https://www.worldhistory.org/Pre-Socratic_Philosophers/)

Whenever I see them, I flag them. Simple really. — Agustino

What does the flag icon mean and what is its purpose? I clicked it thinking I will be asked something or given some options, but nothing of all that. The icon just greyed out! Horrible!
I searched all over the place and couldn't find anything! I hope it's not something bad!

(Note: As you must have guessed, I am relatoively new here.)

I think its pretty straight forward, “unexamined” means thoughtless, unreflective…life isnt worth living unless it is given thought, contemplated, otherwise you might as well be an inanimate object. — DingoJones

I agree.

BTW, I am new here and I wanted to "upvote" your comment, so I clicked the flag icon, thinking I would be asked something or select an option. Nothing of all that. It just geyed out! I searched the place to find its meaning but in vain. What is it used for? I hope it does not mean something bad!

Exactly. Thanks for proving me right a second time. That's fine. I don't need another proof.

...

Giving me crap for my lol's? That is neither philosophically relevant nor intellectually sound, and is unequivocally incorrigible. — Enrique

By "12", I meant intellecutal age, not physical. And in fact your expression "giving me crap" proves it. Anyway, maybe I should also mention your hypocrisy (re: "it's pretty damn easy")

...

You do realize that what you're saying is words are a waste of time, don't you? I'll leave you with that to ponder upon. — TheMadFool

Sure it's a waste ... But do you really think that I am going to ponder on something that a Mad Fool tells me? :)

Hate to break it to you, but I think its pretty damn easy to understand lol — Enrique

Of course you think. But "lol"? What are you? 12?

You are right about being pragmatic. I also agree with other things you say.
BTW, I have removed the rest of my comment because I consider it actually "off-topic". Sorry about that!

An antirealist is "a person who denies the existence of an objective reality". — Michael McMahon

I am among the ones who believe that there is no objective reality. Yet, I consider myself a realist, in the sense of a person who accepts a situation as it is and is prepared to deal with it accordingly ...

Kants thing in itself, direct notions of eternity, nothingness, etc, at first thought, seem to represent thing which are unknowable. — Aidan buk

What ?

Topic: Necessity and god



I am trying to get the description of the topic clarified (for me)...

God is supposed to be a necessary being. — Banno

1) Is this a hypothesis or an assumption?
2) In what sense and why is god necessary?

Something is necessary if it is true in every possible world. — Banno

3) What are the possible worlds?
4) Why do we need to talk about other worlds, from the moment that the existence of a god has not been even proven --beyond doubt or at least as a commonly accepted truth-- in our own world? Or has it?

Clarification: Words don't enrich our lives as much as it's a marker of the breadth of one's experiences. — TheMadFool

I gave you two examples to show you that words do not determine one's experience(s). I can give you a lot more, but I don't see the point. As I can see, you ignored them. So that's it for me.