Precisely the implication that I was suggesting follows from the statement in question. Mentioning anything imaginary is outside said limit. I might very well be off the trail at this point. Thanks for the response.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.. — Alkis Piskas
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. — Alkis Piskas
all those who (correctly mentioned the need of "context") have not such a context ready but... 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"? — Alkis Piskas
TW, what's your relation with Socrates? — Alkis Piskas
Think on that a bit. I've bolded the problematic word. In what way is the real world outside of language? Tell me about something which cannot be put into words. — Banno
I would grant that you are right that what can be expressed does not limit what can be seen; that is not the point. — Antony Nickles
being "seen" does not make the world "exist" in the way that Wittgenstein is talking about here — Antony Nickles
As an example, you may not exist to the extent you have not expressed anything to differentiate yourself--categorically (in the logic of living) you are "not alive" (living your life), to yourself or to us. — Antony Nickles
When I said not real I meant Tao Te Ching. — Alkis Piskas
But then, aren't both statements 1) "the unnamed world is identified as 'non-being'" and 2) "the world does not exist until it is named" implied by Wittgenstein's statement? — Alkis Piskas
I have recently been presented with Wittgenstein's statement-quote, "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world". I found it quite shallow. — Alkis Piskas
being "seen" does not make the world "exist" in the way that Wittgenstein is talking about here
— Antony Nickles
It is not clear to me what way you think he is talking about. It is not that being seen makes the world exist but that the world must exist to be seen. — Fooloso4
this is not about competing opinions — Antony Nickles
take the criteria of logic and create a "world" from just that — Antony Nickles
Your definitions of "the world" and "existence" are stopping you from trying to learn anything before you even begin. — Antony Nickles
As with "exist"; something like: that you are not aware of, that does not/can not matter to you. — Antony Nickles
That's not a limit on language, not a limit on what can be done, nor a limit on what can be understood, comprehended, felt, loved, hated... it's a limit on what can be said. — Banno
6.5 When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be framed at all, it is also possible to answer it. — Banno
Without thinking of good or evil, [what was] show me your original face before your mother and father were born?
Ethics and Aesthetics are found in what one does, not in what one says. This is how the Tractatus leads to the Investigations, — Banno
...and the fool appears. He wants the Twitter version, the answer to life, the universe and everything in 200 characters or less. He won't read, let alone think. — Banno
Again, read the Tractatus, or at least take a look at the secondary literature. — Banno
Oh, it's like a magic phrase that is unintelligible unless other magic phrases activate it.I would suggest this is a confusion that "meaning" is assigned to a word, so when we put words together, it is easy for you to see how they are supposed to be important, the point in saying them. But "this is not how it works". What this expression is doing is only able to be deciphered from the context of the text, the evidence of how it relates to the rest. — Antony Nickles
What are the conditions for determining whether or not something can ever be discussed? — Cheshire
The Kant ball(thing in itself) was called into question.It shows how to systematically derive all possible truths from elementary propositions. — Banno
Thank you Corvus for your repsonse. — Alkis Piskas
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? — Alkis Piskas
take the criteria of logic and create a "world" from just that
— Antony Nickles
— Fooloso4
His argument... is about the transcendental conditions and a priori structure of the world and language and what is beyond them. — Fooloso4
As with "exist"; something like: that you are not aware of, that does not/can not matter to you.
— Antony Nickles
Do you mean that it does not "exist" if you are not aware of it or it does not matter to you, that what exists is what does matter to you, what you are aware of? In that case, as I said, the baby's world does exist, even though it is pre-linguistic and more limited. Its hunger matters, the fact that its hunger can be satisfied matters. — Fooloso4
Think on that a bit. I've bolded the problematic word. In what way is the real world outside of language? Tell me about something which cannot be put into words. — Banno
The question is, "Tell me about something which cannot be put into words." — Banno
What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence. — Banno
A fool might think that what cannot be spoken of is not important. For Wittgenstein, it was of the highest importance. — Banno
But the most outstanding thing shown by this thread is how little effort so many of you are willing to put into actually doing philosophy. — Banno
At any rate, it seems awful strong to limit reality to human language — Marchesk
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.