- Joined
- Oct 4, 2018
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 34
- Location
- Bellevue, WA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
If your paradigm of language-driven thought is correct, then uncertainty and ineffability are related, no?
As for the Wittgenstein line quoted in the OP, it seems clear to me, even without identifying the source, that the line is about the limits of language, not the limits of thought. The terms are speaking and silence after all. And given the source -- since we both appear to have an appreciation of Wittgenstein -- you are no doubt familiar with the even more famous line of his in which he asserts that the limits of his language are the limits of his world, yes?
In short, I don't see my take on the OP quote as "off the tracks," but I welcome elaboration from you on this score.
For the record, I am not anti-atheist. I have the greatest respect for the great atheist thinkers of the past, such as Sartre and Camus. I am anti-anti-theist, which is today's pop atheism, a strident ill-informed brand of atheism that is really anti-religion and based on fear and ignorance, a brand of atheism generated some fifteen years ago by Dawkins and company, a form of religious bigotry that has done a great deal of harm in its influence on non-critical minds. Your debut post and its follow-up were chapter and verse out of the New Atheism, and so the association on my part was not silly as it addressed quite specifically the content of your posts.
I'm completely in accord with your anti-muzzling agreement. I'm first and last in favor of the free and open marketplace of ideas.
The intention of the OP was that knowledge of Wittgenstein or his work is unnecessary to forming an opinion on the quoted line, but it is identified as a line from a philosophical word and your characterization of it as an "adage" and "a wise piece of sophistry" that launched on this one-upmanship trophy hunt. We can move on.
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
Translated: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Quoted above is one of the most famous (perhaps also infamous) propositions to come out of twentieth-century philosophy, written by one of the most renowned philosophers of the twentieth century .
What do you think this proposition means?
What does it say to you?
Do you find its meaning congenial to your philosophical view of the world?
If true, what implications does this proposition hold for philosophical discussion?
It mean that you should never speak about science other than to ask questions as you have not the slightest clue about it.
I don't follow you here. Would you kindly restate?So are lots of concepts, but there is an important difference between uncertainty and ambiguity.If your paradigm of language-driven thought is correct, then uncertainty and ineffability are related, no?
...
You see, that's not how I read the line. I don't read it as saying anything at all about knowledge. I read it rather as saying something about the semantic limits of language. Something a poem like the Frost poem we've shared above gives the lie to....
I understand, but I don't really think you were starting an intellectual discussion on the merits of the Tractatus, of which that line was basically the final conclusion. For the purposes of this discussion, it really can be treated as an adage. Basically, it could just mean essentially "If you don't know what you are talking about, keep your mouth shut."
...
I don't follow you here. Would you kindly restate?So are lots of concepts, but there is an important difference between uncertainty and ambiguity.
You see, that's not how I read the line. I don't read it as saying anything at all about knowledge. I read it rather as saying something about the semantic limits of language. Something a poem like the Frost poem we've shared above gives the lie to.I understand, but I don't really think you were starting an intellectual discussion on the merits of the Tractatus, of which that line was basically the final conclusion. For the purposes of this discussion, it really can be treated as an adage. Basically, it could just mean essentially "If you don't know what you are talking about, keep your mouth shut."
On the Frost poem we agree....
I still hold that Frost's poem is a brilliant example of how language can convey the thoughts and feelings of the poet and not of the limitations of language. It has nothing whatsoever to do with ineffability. We all share those feelings. As Wittgenstein was often at pains to point out, language doesn't itself fully express the thoughts being communicated. It evokes those thoughts, which already exist in the mind of the person interpreting the language. It isn't just about the linguistic signal. It is about the signal in a particular context of discourse. We understand metaphors, because metaphors evoke thoughts that are not associated with the literal semantics of the linguistic expression.
BTW, I recommend Lakoff and Johnson's Metaphors We Live By, if you haven't already read it. It is a fairly short monograph and requires no linguistic training to understand. The reason I recommend it is that it goes into detail on how deeply ingrained metaphor is in the language that everyone uses, not just poets.
Actually, poets are quite good at expressing their thoughts in words. That's the whole point. It is not language that limits them. It is language that empowers them. We can talk about anything that we can have thoughts about, because language is basically word-guided mental telepathy. Any emotion or mood can be quite nicely described in terms of language, because the speech signal itself is only a means of evoking mental states and associations that we all already possess.
Yes, I agree that language is word-guided telepathy. However, that explains why communication can be so hard. If your listener isn't already to some extent on your "wavelength," your words will mean nothing to them.
By the way, did you get that idea from the linguist called Moonhawk? That's where I heard of it.
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
Translated: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Quoted above is one of the most famous (perhaps also infamous) propositions to come out of twentieth-century philosophy, written by one of the most renowned philosophers of the twentieth century .
What do you think this proposition means?
What does it say to you?
Do you find its meaning congenial to your philosophical view of the world?
If true, what implications does this proposition hold for philosophical discussion?
I don't know how much nuance/connotation is lost in the translation, but if it's faithful and the intended meaning isn't "Don't speak on topics you aren't knowledgeable in.", it's going to be widely misinterpreted."Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
Translated: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Quoted above is one of the most famous (perhaps also infamous) propositions to come out of twentieth-century philosophy, written by one of the most renowned philosophers of the twentieth century .
What do you think this proposition means?
What does it say to you?
Do you find its meaning congenial to your philosophical view of the world?
If true, what implications does this proposition hold for philosophical discussion?
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
Translated: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Quoted above is one of the most famous (perhaps also infamous) propositions to come out of twentieth-century philosophy, written by one of the most renowned philosophers of the twentieth century .
What do you think this proposition means?
What does it say to you?
Do you find its meaning congenial to your philosophical view of the world?
If true, what implications does this proposition hold for philosophical discussion?
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
Translated: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Quoted above is one of the most famous (perhaps also infamous) propositions to come out of twentieth-century philosophy, written by one of the most renowned philosophers of the twentieth century .
What do you think this proposition means?
What does it say to you?
Do you find its meaning congenial to your philosophical view of the world?
If true, what implications does this proposition hold for philosophical discussion?
1. I have just returned from reading the Wikipedia article about Mr. W.
2. I am probably wrong, but I interpret his famous quotation as: Language has its limits when people want to express certain ideas or feelings. So do NOT even try.
3. I know nothing about poetry, but I have heard that some people feel that a good poem (and especially some music) can "speak" to people in a way that no human-invented prose ever can.
I don't know how much nuance/connotation is lost in the translation, but if it's faithful and the intended meaning isn't "Don't speak on topics you aren't knowledgeable in.", it's going to be widely misinterpreted.
Having said this, @Elvira mentions that the quotation is the final line of one of Dr. Wittgenstein's major works. Without having read the book myself, I suspect the context of the quote may be indispensable to its proper interpretation.
As an engineer, I regard most philosophy--and especially contemporary philosophy--as trying to erect a building on top of a heap of garbage, floating in water, drifting in outer space, in the middle of a supernova. And once this "building" is erected, whatever chaotic mess it turns out to be, the goal of the next eager philosopher is to erect a building on top of it.
Intellectually stimulating, I suppose, but ultimately useless.
I took it to mean: if one lacks first hand knowledge (experience?) on a topic (matter?) then they should STFU about it and defer to those who do.
Reads like a trivial tautology. :2razz:
1. I have just returned from reading the Wikipedia article about Mr. W.
2. I am probably wrong, but I interpret his famous quotation as: Language has its limits when people want to express certain ideas or feelings. So do NOT even try.
3. I know nothing about poetry, but I have heard that some people feel that a good poem (and especially some music) can "speak" to people in a way that no human-invented prose ever can.
INEFFABLE
"Do you know what the word ineffable means, boys and girls?"
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
Translated: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Quoted above is one of the most famous (perhaps also infamous) propositions to come out of twentieth-century philosophy, written by one of the most renowned philosophers of the twentieth century .
What do you think this proposition means?
What does it say to you?
Do you find its meaning congenial to your philosophical view of the world?
If true, what implications does this proposition hold for philosophical discussion?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?