Witt is wrong. The limits of our language do not represent the limits of our world. They most certainly do represent the limits of what we can sensibly talk about.

They most certainly do represent the limits of what we can sensibly talk about. — creativesoul

That’s true! Without a language we cannot communicate with others. Imagine finding yourself in a country where everyone speaks a different language. Your life there would be very limited until you learn how to understand others and express yourself. And when you do, your world would “expand”: you’d learn about their culture, history and traditions.

This goes even further. If you can’t talk about something, you also cannot effectively reason about it in your head. Your ability to think is limited. There are many fields of study where journey to proficiency starts with building a vocabulary. For example, someone can listen to a piece of music and think “The sound just changed in an interesting way“, but a musician will think “It was a dominant seventh enharmonic modulation to the key of G”. One could argue that the musician has a more complex inner world (vocabulary) when it comes to music, which allows her to make inferences that other people wouldn’t. This is how we can associate language with internal limitations. My favorite thing is that we can always learn new concepts and keep expanding beyond our past limits.

Witt is wrong. The limits of our language do not represent the limits of our world. They most certainly do represent the limits of what we can sensibly talk about. — creativesoul

:up: At last!

Without a language we cannot communicate with others — pfirefry

It's not about communication in general. @ceativesoul mentioned "talk about". (Since words here are the main factor.) Otherwise, we can communicate with others in a lot of different ways ...

Wittgenstein wrote in TLP 6.421 "It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental". — RussellA

Ethics is not at all transcendental --not in a Kantian sense or a supernatural or abstract way or exceeding experience. It is something very practical, real and rational. It has to do with survival and well being.
So as I see, Wittgenstein had also this wrong ...

Witt is wrong. The limits of our language do not represent the limits of our world. They most certainly do represent the limits of what we can sensibly talk about. — creativesoul

But

Tractatus:
1, the world is all that is the case.

Hence the world is limited to what is the case, to what can be stated. This is not an observation so much as setting out what counts as meaningful discourse and what is nonsense.

This develops into the distinction between what is said and what can only be shown. It remains that one cannot express the grace in movement found in the Blue Danube in words; one can however share it.

Again,

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

Witt is wrong. The limits of our language do not represent the limits of our world. They most certainly do represent the limits of what we can sensibly talk about. — creativesoul

This:

Tractatus:
1, the world is all that is the case — Banno

- is different from this:

Hence the world is limited to what is the case, to what can be stated. — Banno

Unless you mean: Hence the world is limited to what is the case, to what can [potentially] be stated [by an intelligence with access to what is the case].

What is unknown about the world, though at the moment unstatable, is still the case - and will be statable as it becomes known.

Charity.

Charity. — Banno

Charity is good. Clarity is better. (More clarity means fewer requests for charity. Also less confusion and misunderstanding.)

If you agree with this:

Hence the world is limited to what is the case, to what can [potentially] be stated [by an intelligence with access to what is the case]. — ZzzoneiroCosm

- you should also agree with this:

The limits of our language do not represent the limits of our world. They most certainly do represent the limits of what we can sensibly talk about. — creativesoul

Do you?

It's good to see you working through the issues. I suspect that my critiquing what you have to say would do little but get on your goat.

A point of clarity: being unstated and being unstateable - do you see them as different?

So better: What is unknown about the world at the moment is unstated, but is nevertheless stateable.

A point of clarity: being unstated and being unstateable - do you see them as different?

So better: What is unknown about the world at the moment is unstated, but is nevertheless stateable — Banno

I don't mind critique or getting my goat got. I know your personality well. ;)

Yes, different.



Is this your position?

What is unknown is statable.

All unknowns are statable.

What is unknown is unstated but statable.

All unknowns are unstated but statable.

If one is talking about propositional knowledge, then pretty much. I don't see a viable alternative.

So:

In the case of propositional knowledge, what is unknown is statable.

Still in agreement?

Is there any other kind of knowledge? Or is all knowledge propositional?

What is unknown about the world at the moment is unstated, but is nevertheless stateable. — Banno

I was thinking about this strange use of the suffix -able.

So we have an unknown that you say is statable but at this time no one on earth and nothing in the universe can state it.

Take drivable. Here is a car that's drivable but at this time no one on earth and nothing in the universe can drive it.

Drivable is being used in a very strange (you might even say a special) way. All the drivable cars I've come across could be driven by something in the universe.

Take drivable. Here is a car that's drivable but at this time no one on earth and nothing in the universe has driven it. — ZzzoneiroCosm

A new car.

Adopting your phraseology:

So we have car that you say is drivable but at this time no one on earth and nothing in the universe has driven it. My next question is: Can anyone actually drive it? Possibly, possibly not. It's unknown. It's a trust issue: do I trust what you say?

By the same token and again adopting your phraseology:

So we have an unknown that you say is statable but at this time no one on earth and nothing in the universe has stated it. My next question is: Can anyone state it? Possibly, possibly not. It's unknown. Certainly, trust is not an option.

At the moment the unknown becomes the known the statable has been stated?

But are we then stating an unknown or stating a known?

Or is this the place for charity?

It seems like too crucial a distinction to gloss over with a charitable nod.

Can anyone state it? — ZzzoneiroCosm

If they could not, then how is it a proposition?

You seem tone deaf to the point here, which is that propositions can be stated. While one can have a car that cannot be driven, one cannot have a proposition that can not be stated.

Doubtless there are dubious fringe examples. They are irrelevant. This is not something open to falsification. If you like, it's a hinge proposition.

If they could not, then how is it a proposition? — Banno

We didn't say it was a proposition. We said it was an unknown.

Are unknowns propositions?

You seem tone deaf to the point here, which is that propositions can be stated. While one can have a car that cannot be driven, one cannot have a proposition that can not be stated. — Banno

This point is clear and non-controversial. Propositions can be stated. If it's a proposition, it can be stated.

But we were talking about an unknown not a proposition.

But we were talking about an unknown not a proposition. — ZzzoneiroCosm

We were taking about

....the world is limited to what is the case, — ZzzoneiroCosm

What is the case is what can be placed into propositional form. That's what "what is the case" means.

If you have an alternate meaning, set it out.

What is the case is what can be placed into propositional form. That's what "what is the case" means. — Banno

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. :smile:

Witt is wrong. The limits of our language do not represent the limits of our world. They most certainly do represent the limits of what we can sensibly talk about. — creativesoul

being unstated and being unstateable - do you see them as different? — Banno

This seems to be the crux of the controversy. This odd use of the word statable in connection to the unknown.

Using Banno's definition of statable:

Unknowns are statable because unknowns are still states of affairs and states of affairs can be put into the form of a proposition and every proposition can be stated.



Using a dictionary definition of statable: "capable of being stated."

In fact, it's not actually true that an unknown is statable - even if what is the case can always be put into the form of a proposition. An unknown is unstatable, not because it can't ultimately be put into the form of a proposition, but because the contents of the proposition are unknown.

An unknown, if and when it becomes a known, becomes statable.




So where Banno is content to say an unknown is statable, creative would like to place the unknown beyond the "limits of language." This is the portion of his world beyond the limits of language.


Both are true in their own way.

So where Banno is content to say an unknown is statable, creative would like to place the unknown beyond the "limits of language." This is the portion of his world beyond the limits of language. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Nice summary! Indeed, on my view the unknown is akin to Kant's Noumena in that very specific way.

...we have an unknown that you say is statable but at this time no one on earth and nothing in the universe can state it. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That reminds me of "falsifiable", when it comes to true statements. Seems to me that true statements cannot be false, therefore are not able to be falsified or shown as false. I'm probably just not understanding correctly though.

:wink:

...on my view the unknown is akin to Kant's Noumena in that very specific way. — creativesoul

...akin in the regard that you and Kant insist on talking about that of which you cannot say anything.

Akin in saying that all you can say is that we can know that there are unknowns...

There are unknowns. Unless you, along with other anti-realists, know everything? In which case I will bow and take my leave...

Name calling is not nice.

:wink:

A cool way to see the implications is to follow the the story of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It's cultural relativity. Whorf tried to prove it by analyzing the Hopi language. He thought he discovered that they have no words for segments of time and so have no concept of discrete time.

His research was flawed and useless, but there's other research that concentrates on color.

@Banno

1, the world is all that is the case.

Hence the world is limited to what is the case, to what can be stated. — Banno

:up:

You don't/can't say anything. You clam up.

EITHER

1. There's nothing to say

OR

2. There's something to say but you can't say it

As long as ineffable experiences (2) can't be distinguished from no experience (1), the limits of my language means the limits of my world!