Just what is or what does it mean to be at the limits of one's language? — Shawn
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
I don't think that Wittgenstein meant that there is no world outside of language. I see it more as an attempt to show that human "reality" is limited (even by senses). And language is also following that limited reality that people can understand and also express through it. — dimosthenis9
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
Would a professional writer have done better - vocabulary, style, etc. - if you'd asked faer to write your post for you? — TheMadFool
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.I can't otherwise explain that such a great mind as Wittgenstein would make such a "shallow" statement(mistake) as you say. — dimosthenis9
The statement cannot be understood without understanding how he draws the limits of "my world". — Fooloso4
Well, first, we cannot take one line out of context and imagine that we can understand it without projecting our own concerns. — Antony Nickles
'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
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
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
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 — Alkis Piskas
Those who speak do not know. Those who know do not speak
— Lao Tzu
Mighty interesting, once you compare the above to,
The limits of my language means the limits of my world
— Ludwig Wittgenstein
Lao Tzu seems to be saying that there are things you can know but can't put into words.
Wittgenstein seems to be saying that what you can't put into words, you can't know. Socratic!
1. If you know then you can word it (False as per Lao Tzu, True as per Wittgenstein).
Contradiction!
Both Lao Tzu and Ludwig Wittgenstein seem to be doing a dance around, this is important, ineffables. The former claims that the ineffable is knowable while the latter claims that the ineffable is unknowable. — TheMadFool
You have brought up a lot of thoughts (which I guess are attributed to Wittgenstein?) — Alkis Piskas
Thus when the Tractatus tells us that 'Logic is transcendental', it does not mean that the propositions of logic state transcendental truths; it means that they, like all other propositions, shew something that pervades everything sayable and is itself unsayable. — Anscombe, G. E. M. An Introduction to Wittgenstein's Tractatus. 1971. G. E. M. Anscombe, pg. 166
This can be seen as coming from Wittgenstein's view of language as saying what can be said about my world and showing what cannot be said about my world. — Shawn
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. — Antony Nickles
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). — Alkis Piskas
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
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.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 are skills that have nothing / very little to do with linguistic capabilities unless you are writing instruction booklets for them. — Corvus
There's no benefit in imagining unexplainable things; of which this is oddly an example or not. — Cheshire
He is reflecting on the nature of knowledge. — Wayfarer
Almost everything in my was direct quotes from the Tractatus including his numbers. The numbers should not be ignored. — Fooloso4
What can be said does not limit what can be seen. Language represents or pictures the world, it cannot do so if it is not seen. It does not begin to be seen only when one begins to say things. — Fooloso4
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. — Alkis Piskas
Less familiar? Sure. Less real? No. I just wanted to point out that the idea of language limiting our worlds is not uncommon. — T Clark
Yes, that is what Witt is working from; the world does not exist for [ babies ] as yet.
— Antony Nickles
What can be said does not limit what can be seen. Language represents or pictures the world, it cannot do so if it is not seen. It does not begin to be seen only when one begins to say things. — Fooloso4
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.