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

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 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

I just tried to explain to Foloso4 above that this is not an assertion of empirical knowledge. That "Witt is not "explaining"--he is not doing science here; these are not statements of fact--not statements."

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

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. This is the process of reading--it is not accomplished immediately, nor can it be simply explained, nor maybe told at all. So in a way, Witt had to write the whole book in order to write that sentence. There is no shortcut in philosophy or you end up with useless pithy meaningless statements. That being said, there is always the attempt; however, your ability to comprehend what anyone is telling you about this, presupposes that you already have some familiarity (even if mistaken) not simply taken from common sense, science, or your thoughts about it. And the last sentence you quote belies that we can speak about quite a bit, just not simply or just in statements. And, in the PI, Witt removes the logical criteria, and we find we can speak precisely about even more topics.

TW, what's your relation with Socrates? — Alkis Piskas

Right method, but, as with Witt in the TLP, the criteria pushed Plato to a forced conclusion.

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

Anything science hasn't learned about yet. For example, an empirically supported theory combining gravity and quantum mechanics. Or the proofs for unknown mathematical theorems. I suppose you will say we can put them into words (or equations) once we know what they are. So you mean potential language. Something that could possibly be expressed. Even if it requires new concepts.

So if we're talking about any possible human language or formalism, then the possibility that we're cognitively closed to some aspects or reality. Maybe we can't express what the exact nature of reality or consciousness is because it's beyond our cognitive abilities. Maybe there are things we don't know to build instruments of and put into words.

At any rate, it seems awful strong to limit reality to human language. Are the aliens saying the same things we are?

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

When you deny that the world does not yet exist for a baby it seems to me that that is exactly the point. If you connect existing to interests and cares why are you excluding the interests and cares of the baby?

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.

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

This makes no sense to me. I do not recall anything in the Tractatus along these lines. I must exist in order to differentiate myself. Perhaps on a forum like this no one might know I exist until I say something but speaking is not the only one in which I differentiate myself. Where does Wittgenstein talk about the "logic of living"? What does it mean? There are many ways in which I can express myself. Not all of them supported by the logical scaffolding of the Tractatus.

When I said not real I meant Tao Te Ching. — Alkis Piskas

Yes. I understood that.

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 agree. That was why I brought it up.

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

Given what you've written, I'm going to assume that you haven't really studied the Tractatus. To understand what Wittgenstein is saying in this quote, you have to understand what is going on in philosophy vis a vis Bertrand Russell and Gottlob Frege ("I will only mention that I am indebted to Frege's great works and to the writings of my friend Mr. Bertrand Russell for much of the stimulation of my thoughts (p.3 Preface to the Tractatus)); and you have to understand Wittgenstein's goal in the Tractatus. I'm not going to get into the philosophy of Russell and Frege, but I will say a few words about the Tractatus, and what Wittgenstein was trying to accomplish.

In the Preface to the Tractatus Wittgenstein clearly states that his goal is to draw a limit to the expression of thoughts, and since language is used to express our thoughts, it will only be in language that the limit can be drawn (p. 3 Preface). For Wittgenstein there is a definite logic to language. In fact, Wittgenstein's sees a one-to-one correspondence between propositions and facts in the world. Propositions describe the world, they are pictures of the world. So, the three main issues are logic, language, and the world, and Wittgenstein's analysis is an a priori analysis of these three ideas and how they connect.

So, Wittgenstein is caught up in the continuing problem of how thought and language connect to the world, i.e., how is it that we are able to say things about the world? His a priori investigation includes the idea that logic will reveal the structure of language and the structure of the world. There must be a logical connection that will reveal itself through analysis. His work extends "...from the foundations of logic to the nature of the world (Nb, p. 79)."

If as Wittgenstein believed, there is a one-to-one correspondence between what can be said about the world, and the facts of the world, then everything that can be said about the world, would give us a complete picture of the world. We would have completely described the world, given we have everything that can be said. So, if this is true, then the limits of our language, i.e., everything that can be stated about the world, would completely describe the limits of our (or my) world.

This hopefully, will give you a different way of thinking about the quote from Tractatus 5.62.

Also, your own understanding of the world is limited by your grasp of the propositions that really do line up with facts in the world. This, I believe, is why Wittgenstein believed it important to understand the logic of our language, which continued into his later philosophy. Although, his later philosophy is a much more expanded view of the logic of language.

Maybe this will help you to understand the quote a little better, and get you to read more about the history behind the Tractatus.

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

Again, this is not about competing opinions, between you and Witt or you and me. Your assertion that the "world must exist" is not "wrong"; it is just different in kind (scientific, empirical, etc.) then what Witt is doing in trying to take the criteria of logic and create a "world" from just that, as Kant did in a sense. To see what philosophical world we have when we start with those assumptions. I'm not saying he is right in doing that, but he would never have gotten to where he does in PI if he didn't develop this vision from this desire.

So this is not an "argument" about what "the" world and existence "are", it is a fantasy, a picturing to find what we can be certain of. All of these "statements" are only what he is certain he can say within the constraints he imposes on himself--taking a requirement and pushing it around to see how it fills out. Your definitions of "the world" and "existence" are stopping you from trying to learn anything before you even begin.

this is not about competing opinions — Antony Nickles

For me it is about trying to understanding Wittgenstein.

take the criteria of logic and create a "world" from just that — Antony Nickles

His argument is a priori, but it is not about creating a world, it is about the transcendental conditions and a priori structure of the world and language and what is beyond them.

Your definitions of "the world" and "existence" are stopping you from trying to learn anything before you even begin. — Antony Nickles

I began a long time ago. My dissertation was on Wittgenstein.

I have not given a definition of the world or existence. I am in agreement regarding the limits of the world, but there is a distinction between the world and my world.

With regard to existence you say:

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.

So the thread is divided between those who read an aphorism and those who read the Tractatus.

Spoon feeding time:

1. The world is everything that is the case

5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world
Hence, the limits my language are the limits of what is the case. That is, it if is the case then it can be stated.

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.

Can you say how much you love her? But I love her more than words can say...

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.

7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

A fool might think that what cannot be spoken of is not important. For Wittgenstein, it was of the highest importance.

Ethics and Aesthetics are found in what one does, not in what one says. This is how the Tractatus leads to the Investigations,

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.

You donj't wnat philosophy; you want Twitter.

For the really hard of thinking, the bold bits are from the Tractatus, which can be found here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5740/5740-pdf.pdf

Anything science hasn't learned about yet. — Marchesk

That would be an answer to "Tell me about something which has not be put into words."

The question is, "Tell me about something which cannot be put into words."

Thanks, Sam.

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

You're contradicting yourself. Language = saying.

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

This doesn't make sense. Saying = Doing. Disambiguate please.

...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.

Again, read the Tractatus, or at least take a look at the secondary literature.

You're welcome Banno.

The question is, "Tell me about something which cannot be put into words." — Banno

Follow up question, "Can everything real be put into words"?

...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

:rofl: Don't get upset!

Again, read the Tractatus, or at least take a look at the secondary literature. — Banno

:up: :ok:

By the way, you need to take opposition more positively.

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

Oh, it's like a magic phrase that is unintelligible unless other magic phrases activate it.

It seems like a tactic of argumentation not to simply state your point. No one talks to themselves this way.

"Can everything real be put into words"? — Marchesk

Not the really important stuff. Thereof, one might best just get on with it.

Not the really important stuff. — Banno

Like your disdain for metaphysics?

Yep.

Philosophy so often goes nowhere. One common example is the "thing in itself", of which we can say nothing, and yet which occupies many volumes of metaphysics.

But there are ways of understanding some metaphysical proposition. See Confirmable and influential Metaphysics

Something similar is done in On Certainty, and in Austin's work, involving a close analysis of the language of metaphysical speculation in order to sort out what has potential and what is mere fluff.

What are the conditions for determining whether or not something can ever be discussed? The argument is an assertion followed by an empty pause, but it seems like there should have been a time when the matter was uncertain and criteria was an issue.

What are the conditions for determining whether or not something can ever be discussed? — Cheshire

The Tractatus sets out to give an account of exactly that. It shows how to systematically derive all possible truths from elementary propositions.

Of course this derivation from simples is later rejected in Philosophical Investigations.

Of course this derivation from simples is later ejected in Philosophical Investigations. — Banno

So, originally it failed to be a possible truth.

So, originally it failed to be a possible truth. — Cheshire

What?

As in, again, your meaning is unclear.

It shows how to systematically derive all possible truths from elementary propositions. — Banno

The Kant ball(thing in itself) was called into question.
Found to meet criteria laid out in the Tractatus for things that can't be discussed.
The things that can't be discussed are derived from an abandoned system of simple truths.

Probably the grossest over simplification to date. But, I was trying to get at the timeline.

Thank you Corvus for your repsonse. — Alkis Piskas

You are very welcome.

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

In the OP, I was under the impression that you were in deep confusion with the understanding of Wittgenstein's quotes and his philosophical points with his sayings regarding the limitation of the world and language.  Hence I explained in detail what I think about the quotes and its meanings in my post.

I was expecting your reply whether you agreed with my points or not.  Of course I agree with me.

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

"4.023...The proposition constructs a world with the help of a logical scaffolding"

But he is not stating the "structure of the world" (a priori or otherwise), he is dictating the terms for the structure of language. "The world is the totality of facts, not of things." (1.1; Ogden) This is not to make a statement that is either true or false; it is setting the bar of what he wants the criteria of "the world" to be--not "things" (in themselves), but only the totality of what he sees as a fact. He does not consider anything we do not find to be logical, to be. The world "is"=X. This is not a finding; it is a forced definition, in the second line; he starts there, it is not a conclusion.

The sense of "reality" is created by Witt's imposed criteria of logic. Like Kant, with the imposition of a standard as part of his "a priori" structure, we lose the "thing-in-itself". We are distanced from "reality" with picturing (4.06) a model (2.12) reaching out for a link (2.1511) applying a scale (2.1512) just touching (2.1515) as the logical form of a picture (2.17-18) a depiction of possibility (2.201) a sense of reality (2.222) made to agree (4.023) compared to (2.223; 4.05) an expression (4.121) bound from, limited (5.5561).

"4.023... one can actually see in the proposition all the logical features possessed by reality if it is true."

But this sense of truth is a phantasm. As he will say later in PI, what we say is true or false, but this is not an opinion (knowledge) of the world (#244). Witt in a sense pulls back his ambition as he sees that his criteria for logic is folding in on itself and limiting more and more what he can talk about that will meet that criteria. It is not that we only act or show after that, but that he can not talk about it because of his standard for what he will listen to.

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

I was saying that in the sense that it does not register, as, say, knowledge. Now you can hang on tight to the idea that "existence" and "reality" are qualities; that there is an "outside" world. But in the TLP, Witt has no way to get at it; no way to make it exist for us, as in: in any meaningful way, except that it meets his logical criteria. His requirement for language kills the world before we can get to it.

Talk to yourself anyway you like, but not to me like that.

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

Is the animal's world inside language? Is even the human world entirely within the bounds of language? If so, how does that work?

The question is, "Tell me about something which cannot be put into words." — Banno

I think you are playing with the words here. He did told you something already. But since you insist. Can you put what is going on in unconscious human mind into words? If yes I would be glad to hear.

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

So since you say that for Wittgenstein was of the highest importance what can't be said. You think he proposes to just let them pass? To not deal with them at all since language can't help?? Not to try to actually "discover" more of them?? Let the important things be in the dark and in deep silence?
No.For me is about trying to get over language limitations as an attempt to discover them!Wittgenstein wouldn't give up such easily! And yes, then language might evolve also in the future! Human language has remained the same from Homo sapiens till now? Nothing is stable!

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

I don't doubt that you studied Wittgenstein and that you seem to be a well read man.
But is your understanding of Wittgenstein the only right one? Can't someone else read him and had a different opinion about what Wittgenstein actually meant? That is a shallow statement.

At any rate, it seems awful strong to limit reality to human language — Marchesk

Awful wrong better.