"4.023...The proposition constructs a world with the help of a logical scaffolding" — Antony Nickles
so that one can actually see from the proposition how everything stands logically if it is true. One can draw inferences from a false proposition.
But he is not stating the "structure of the world" (a priori or otherwise), he is dictating the terms for the structure of language. — Antony Nickles
What every picture, of whatever form, must have in common with reality in order to be able to represent it at all—rightly or falsely—is the logical form, that is, the form of reality. (2.18)
"The world is the totality of facts, not of things." (1.1; Ogden) — Antony Nickles
A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects (things) (2.01).
The sense of "reality" is created by Witt's imposed criteria of logic. — Antony Nickles
But this sense of truth is a phantasm. As he will say later in PI — Antony Nickles
see. Maybe then you have to look up the word confusion. Well, I'll make it easier: "Uncertainty about what is happening, intended, or required", "a situation of panic or disorder, the state of being bewildered or unclear in one's mind about something", "a situation of panic or disorder" (Ofxord LEXICO). Did I "look" I was in any of these states? :gasp: :worry: :yikes: — Alkis Piskas
Thanks. (I'm not sure though about "always". I hope it is not ironic!)You were right, you were always right! — TheMadFool
You were right, you were always right!
— TheMadFool
Thanks. (I'm not sure though about "always". I hope it is not ironic!) — Alkis Piskas
What we know we must be able to tell — Socrates
What is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know. — St. Augustine
"4.023...The proposition constructs a world with the help of a logical scaffolding, and therefore one can actually see in the proposition all the logical features possessed by reality if it is true. One can draw conclusions from a false proposition."
Whether a proposition is true or false is determined by reality, by what is the case, a state of affairs, the facts. — Fooloso4
The structure of language is also the structure of the world:
What every picture, of whatever form, must have in common with reality in order to be able to represent it at all—rightly or falsely—is the logical form, that is, the form of reality. (2.18) — Fooloso4
The sense of "reality" is created by Witt's imposed criteria of logic.
— Antony Nickles
It is not imposed criteria, logic is what he took to be the underlying structure of language and the world. — Fooloso4
I'd say that language in his term is rather some kind of rules, symbolic nor not, that humans perceive, understand, and apply, based on how he arranged the order of discussion in Philosophical Investigations -- language-games, rule-following, and the private language argument. Arguably our subjective world consists of the rules we perceive.Language-games are, first, a part of a broader context termed by Wittgenstein a form of life (see below). Secondly, the concept of language-games points at the rule-governed character of language. This does not entail strict and definite systems of rules for each and every language-game, but points to the conventional nature of this sort of human activity. Still, just as we cannot give a final, essential definition of ‘game’, so we cannot find “what is common to all these activities and what makes them into language or parts of language” (PI 65).
What we know we must be able to tell
— Socrates
What is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.
— St. Augustine — TheMadFool
Cute quotes! — Alkis Piskas
It's just that in the TLP Witt is limiting the breadth of the world to what meets a certain criteria of logic — Antony Nickles
But to watch him write only what he knows to be absolutely true with such knowing restraint; you can feel his reaching but also never stepping beyond that discipline, so every statement captures his mind frame perfectly. — Antony Nickles
Sorry about that! :smile:Not quite the response I was expecting. — TheMadFool
No problem. We don't necessarily need names ... Indeed there are.I forget who claims that there are ineffables that are true — TheMadFool
Right.hyperfocused on a narrow band of the language spectrum - the written & spoken word - and overlooked body language... — TheMadFool
I have no idea about the mechanics of learning these things ... I leave it to the specialists. I just want to enjoy my riding! :grin:it's the cerebellum that learns/knows how to ride a bicycle. — TheMadFool
Yes, I got that! :smile: Indeed, the word "ineffable" fits perfectly. Pity that we can't ask Wittgenstein "What about ineffables?" :grin:The gist of my posts is the reality of ineffables — TheMadFool
Fair enough!I'm afraid I can't afford to be called "acquainted with Wittgenstein" yet. I happened to skim through some of his works recently. Therefore, I would reserve from giving improper answers to the two questions you asked. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG
Certainly there are!They are definitely good questions to investigate, however. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG
1. The world is everything that is the case — Banno
Mr. Wittgenstein manages to say a good deal about what cannot be said, thus suggesting to the sceptical reader that possibly there may be some loophole through a hierarchy of languages, or by some other exit — RussellA
"I cannot put into words my private experience of the colour red". — RussellA
When Wittgenstein writes "the world is everything that is the case", what he means is very different from what would be meant in common usage.
The nature of language is such that it allows Wittgenstein to talk about things that, in a sense, transcend language — RussellA
language easily misleads us — dimosthenis9
However, there remains the problem with such a language game of the danger of circularity of meaning, in that, if the meaning of the word comes from the game and there are minimal links from the language game to an external reality, then there is the problem of how to choose between different games. — RussellA
(see SEP for more on this.)“For a large class of cases of the employment of the word ‘meaning’—though not for all—this word can be explained in this way: the meaning of a word is its use in the language” (PI 43)
It's just that in the TLP Witt is limiting the breadth of the world to what meets a certain criteria of logic
— Antony Nickles
What needs to be understood is... why he is attempting to draw the limits of what can be thought. He wants to point to what is beyond those limits, to what can be seen but not said. — Fooloso4
I would argue there is a sense where "That which expresses itself in language, we cannot express by language." does not exclude us from discussing the form, or sense, or the picture, or what is concealed — Antony Nickles
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.