/lit/ - Literature

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "WORLD"?

ภาษาของเราถูกจำกัดด้วยพลังแห่ง การรวมศูนย์กลาง อยู่ที่จักรวาลวิทยาของอารยธรรมขอม หรือ เขมร ดูที่ตัวอักษรไทย หรืออักษร ของชาวเขมร เอเชียใต้จะเห็นว่าทุกๆ ตัวอักษรจะต้องมี"วงกลม"อยู่เสมอ นั้นคือ "สัญญะ" แห่งการสร้างภาพการรวมศุนย์อำนาจอยู
่ที่จุดศูนย์กลางอะไรสักอย่าง และแม้แต่คำว่า ศูนย์กลาง ก็ยังชี้ชัดถึงสัญญะนี้ และความเป็นหนึ่งเดียวของ ความว่างเปล่าที่เป็นคุณสมบัติของรา
ชา กับศาสนาพุทธ

>>2442694
why do u have autism

One day I'll read the .pdf on my desktop. But first I'll try summoninbg a succubus

>>2442687

the limits of my language are the limits of anything I can intelligibly express about the world that can be evaluated in terms of truth and falsity

It suffices for daily experience.
language fails only in advanced science and with all encompassing formulations like 'the verification principle.'

Yes, and that has been verified by something other than philosophers in their high castles.

Introducing the piranhas:
http://www.crystalinks.com/piraha.html

>>2442687
not at all. language can impose limits because they make determinations, they objectify subjectivity, that is what language is about: communication; about making agreement for a structurally shared world. But "world" isn't actually objective. It's subjective. It is belief(theory, models, definitions) that imposes limits to language. Imagine if we evolve and can telepathize, sending packages of emotions and experiences to eachother. Is that then the new language that we speak? Well that depends on what we agree on to be the definition. Language is the media between beings; we impose its limits with our consciousness. we also transcend those limits. and when we do that, it manifests as new metaphors in the objective discourse (agreed upon (functioning) world), but it was created within a subject, not originally in words and language, but whims, perceptions, emotions and whatnot indescribable, incommunicable phenomenons.

>>2442687

the limits of my representational systems are the limit of my world, yes.

(my world is bound by the limits of my thoughts and sensations)

Having a small vocabulary can limit how you think, if that's what you mean. Fortunately in a free society, one can always learn moar words.

I don't get this at all. They say a lot of communication isn't expressed through language. I think outside language, thinking is like a self contained language. So suck it Wittgenstein, I rule.

>>2442927
> I don't get this at all.

exactly. you dont. you havent read wittgenstein and if you did, you wouldn't understand shit. so just fucking shut up about it and leave real philosophy to those who are predestined to understand it.

>>2442927
you're defining language too narrowly.

Early wittgenstein might have well just been called Leibniz. Later wittgenstein sucks J.L Austin's balls.

>>2442955

excellent trolling or terrible stupidity

>>2442948
Hahaha predestined to understand it. I'd ask you to explain what he means but does he even know?

>>2442969
i think hes beautifully clear about everything, the confusion only takes place in your head.

>>2442974
Oh for real ?? Why don't you take lit through a few sentences of his tractoritis and explain what he means.

>>2442974
LOL if he was clear, then we wouldn't have Kripkenstein. He is very pleasant to read though. The Tractatus reads like a Zen koan.

>>2442977
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=57PWqFowq-4#t=53s
this should answer all your questions concerning wittgenstein.

>>2442695
>>2442695

Is limited by the power of our language. A central pool. The cosmology of Khmer civilization, or the letter or letter of the Thai, Cambodian, South Asia will see that every Characters must have a "circle" is always the "signs" of an image as the center of power.
However, the center of something. And even the center, it also clarifies the signs of this. And one of The blank page is the property of.
Tea and Buddhism.

>>2442989
Have another go

>>2443019
???

No, they're not.

>>2443047
see
>>2442726

There are people in the amazon who can not be taught 1+1 because of their culture and language. Your understanding of the world is too confined by, and in, the language you speak.

>>2442687
>reappropriate Maya for whiteys
>get money

oh Wittgenstein

The world isn't mine.

>>2443120
>2012
>still believing in the out of africa "theory"

>>2443061
>>2442726
I was fortunate enough to be able to a lecture by this guy about the Pirahã at my university.
It was incredibly interesting.

>>2443061
Many things, among them smells and music, cannot be represented adequately in language, yet they are part of my world. Suck it.

>>2443120

This is neat. I never would have thought Japanese were most closely related to Tibetans. I wonder where the Ainu would fit in there.

>>2443130
All of my envy.

>>2443061
It is very revealing that someone would draw from the fact that certain people lack conceptual faculties which they also cannot express linguistically that the boundaries of language match that of experientiality (or engaging the world) in general. It takes a special kind of /lit/ retardation to conclude that since we do not have words for concepts and experiences we do not have (pretty obvious actually) we also do not have experiences for which we have no words (and this isn't even taking into account fundamentally extra-linguistic qulia like smell and sound mentioned above).

does this sound to anyone else like 1 weird old tip of a closet post-kantian or what

>>2443152
>fundamentally extra-linguistic qulia like smell
LoL.
I had a coffee this morning and it smelled like coffee.
I had a coffee this morning and it really truly smelled like coffee.

I had a coffee this morning too!
Mine smelled like a tip jar!

What language can't cover we express by explaining our feels.

what if you represent you representing

:D

>>2443192
that poster meant nonrepresentational modes of feeling and such

>>2443192
If you don't know what qualia are, look them up on wikipedia before making an ass of yourself (technically incorrect since that implies you weren't before that post).

>>2443152
>can't describe his sensory input
>tries to prove his point by pointing out his personal shortcomings
>ignores the research of a tribe being hindered by their lack of the absurd contexts
untermensch general

>>2443238
is this guy new here or what

>yuro /lit/

>>2443249
He's right though

>>2442687
No, they're the limits of your ability to express your world in words, that's all.

>>2443261
That's what I was going to say, but couldn't find the....find the...somethings...they have letters in them...

>>2443261
Lemme expand on this...

Words are not the sole form of expression. Let's take, as a hypothetical example, a talented visual artist who can easily portray rich, detailed scenes on the canvas, but fails to convey even relatively basic concepts or images via speech. Such an individual is still capable of experiencing that vibrant world portrayed in his or her art, even if he or she isn't capable of describing it in words.

inb4 Rin.

well as you know someone who cannot say stuffs is the same as a mindless kitten

>>2443261
totally so man, I'v had this feeling for sooooo long that nobody understands me or my poetry and they berate me and my clothing and I don't know what to do and I wish I did because I'm pretty smart I just don't know how to say it right but your words give hope.

>>2443285
Quit appealing to ridicule and give me a proper argument. I expanded upon my point here:
>>2443269

Perhaps you've simply never met someone with rich experience and poor language?

>>2443269
>Words are not the sole form of expression.

mommy what are signs

>>2443306
>doesn't recognize the circularity of the signs model
well, at least in the way you use it.

>>2443318
i'm only raising it to make a point

>>2443334
Which is?

Also, do you have any idea how hard it is to Google "signs model?"

Anyway, you'd be better off attacking the substance of my claims, because disregarding me due to my ignorance of certain nomenclature isn't really going to help anyone.

shut up mate you don't even know what écriture is you're boring no-one is interested in addressing your fairly naive and totally uninformed stuff take your medicine pack your bags and move on bud no hard feelings

>>2443376
lol

>>2443376
Well, that was fairly on-target. I can see why you'd have no interest in addressing my argument, as you'd have to unpack certain concepts and explain them to me. I find it somewhat disappointing, though, that one apparently has to have a background in logical discourse in order to be taken seriously. I believe that I have the ideas and the cognitive capability to make and defend interesting points. Such an attitude also isolates intellectualism to a rather small group while disregarding any contributions from outsiders as having no value. Perhaps you like it that way.

> Such an attitude also isolates intellectualism to a rather small group while disregarding any contributions from outsiders as having no value. Perhaps you like it that way.

yesyes we do, because philosophy and math students are all fucking autists, including me.

>>2443479
Fair enough. I appreciate the honesty.

>>2443230
Hey Onionrings. I need to talk. A lot.

>>2442716
>believes only in the indicative mood
>2012
ISHYGDDT

>>2443528
okay. what do you want to talk about

>>2443100
Despite my ignorance I knew'd that'd be Heidi.

>>2443549
A lot. A LOT! A lot has has happened since we last communicated. And I have very few people I can communicate to. Which leaves my options to you or D&E. D&E I can't talk to, because of his arrogance (!).

I can give you some stuff to read, that I have been writing. If you could spare some time go through it and let me know what you think.

Just to anger you a bit: Colloquial language is a terribly overrated tool to understand nature of physical reality.

I am still writing a lot. And I will be on a month long vacation to India in tomorrow where I will get huge amounts of free time, I intend to spend on writing. Hopefully you won't mind reading it too.

I will post some links in the thread in a minute.

Alright.

The problem with these essays is that they were "top down". I wrote them to finally come to a conclusion of understanding how I ought to write them. Sounds a bit convoluted but that's how it stands. I am starting a whole new project with them to write things "bottom up". It won't be perfect, because thing of this form never are, but I will try to re-correct and fill in the gaps eventually.

Here are the links:

http://lastubermensch.blogspot.com/2011/09/language-and-wisdom.html

http://lastubermensch.blogspot.com/2011/09/reality.html

http://lastubermensch.blogspot.com/2011/09/case-of-mistaken-identity.html

http://lastubermensch.blogspot.com/2011/05/beginning.html

http://lastubermensch.blogspot.com/2012/02/critical-thinking.html

http://lastubermensch.blogspot.com/2012/02/warning-against-linguistic-confusion.html

http://lastubermensch.blogspot.com/2012/01/role-of-gods-as-moral-justifiers.html

http://lastubermensch.blogspot.com/2011/12/objective-relative-nomative-and.html

http://lastubermensch.blogspot.com/2011/10/frameworks.html

http://lastubermensch.blogspot.com/2011/10/criticism-of-happiness-as-motive.html

They are a bit cross-linked. Could not help that.

Define "limits, "language" and "world" in this question.

jeez get a room

>Any complex idea can be critically questioned by asking what are its fundamental assumptions and axioms (source: http://godlovesatryer.blogspot.com/2012/02/critical-thinking.html))

also making headlines in tonight's news: derrida uses language to showcase ideas

>>2443578
umm i am kind of busy recently so might not get to it in a timely manner.

>>2443622
As long as that its not a polite way of saying No, I am okay with that.

If God isn't mind control, then what is it?

hey jim what did you think of skyrim

>>2443619
O hai, D7E. Doing ok?

>>2443654
Its okay with some mods. A decent hiking simulator in the good way. Haven't had much time though. Only way to play is on Hardest difficulty.

If you haven't tried Thief 1/2 go for them immediately.

>>2443661
Damn the hashcode.

>>2443578
>The screwdriver, wrench, plunger, ... are the best tools for plumbing because they are...
Just get on with the bloody job mate. Plumber angst..

>>2443717

No. I don't think using language. My intellect goes beyong that.

>>2444264
>beyong

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

>>2444264
if you thinking is intentional, then it is representatinal, and in that case it'd be considered linguistic. consider it to be "the language of thought".

You know what? I don't think so.


I could go to a completely foreign country and not understand a thing; I would see so many things and learn a culture or two, even if I would have trouble with the tongue the locals speak, I guess. It feels more adventurous to go somewhere strange and not understand what I'm getting myself into.


I hope I answered your question right, OP. I'm not exactly sure what you meant, but nevertheless I gave you an answer anyway.

>>2444275
Wow.

Were you in my seminar last week OP?

No because of sub-cognitive processes

Think of Language as the collection of all possible objects and all possible relations between objects. Language is the world "as it is".

Think of MY language as the collection of objects and relations among objects that I know of or can identify. MY language is the world as I know it, or MY world, as Wittgenstein puts it. You can't go beyond your world because everything thinkable becomes a part of language and thus part of your world. Your world evolves in time.

Considering that Tractarian objects are only those of the natural science, MY world only accounts for those scientific propositions that I am aware of. It gets interesting when you consider the transcendental, that which he says is not a part of the world, meaning expressible in language. He classifies metaphysics, theology, aesthetics, logic and ethics in this category. They show themselves in the world, rather than be expressed in propositions. I understand this to mean that metaphysics, theology, aesthetics, logic and ethics decide how we interpret the world and why we care at all to look. The Tractatus is an expression of Wittgenstein's personal metaphysics, ethics and aesthetics; it doesn't have a truth-value in the sense outlined in the book. The book was written to quiet those, who like he, are deeply troubled by particular problems in philosophy and in that it proved satisfactory.

Anyway, the limits of my language are the limits of my world and those limits are drawn not by language but by the transcendental.

>>2444440
Why are there people who do not understand that "I smelt burnt toast" is nothing like the actual smell of burnt toast? The entire range of sensory perceptions cannot be considered to be linguistic in any sensible way. Even if one claimed that sensory perception works in a linguistic fashion (which is retarded and basically boils down to claiming that everything is a language thus the boundaries of language are the boundaries of the world), this would not be the "language" that OP mentioned in his post. We are discussing human language and not language as an overused pseudo-paradigm (as in 'language of thought', e.g.).

LOL Wittgenstein lived before proper neuroscience or psychological methods were developed and that's why his opinions are so wrong. It is understandable..the early 20th century was practically a dark age compared to today.

NO U SILLY OP TEH ONLY LIMIT IS THE SKY!!!1! U CAN DO NETHING IF U BELEAVE!!

>>2443305
>Perhaps you've simply never met someone with rich experience and poor language?
Man, you should see David Lynch in interviews

>>2442687
The limits of my experience are the limits of my world. Which should be obvious.

>>2445297
you experiences have to be conceptualized, however. hence, language is the limit.

>>2445437
There are experiences and concepts wherof one cannot speak.

>>2445119
ahhahahaha this is the stupidest thing ive read in a while. go and study real philosophy at a real university and maybe one day youll understand wittgenstein. or just keep posting crap like this on the internet.

>>2445438
>experiences
Well, in a very wide sense of the term, MAYBE.
>concepts
lol no. Do you even know the meaning of that word...?

omg this thread...
>language =/= words
You know there are nonverbal languages, right?

>>2445473
Do you?

Another lazy undergrad who thinks they have a clue detected.

>>2442687
Once understood that Wittgenstein is using a METAPHOR when he says "your world" (he means "your perspective of the world", not literally a world separated from other worlds that depend of the ones that perceive them), there shouldn't be any problem to understand that he's actually right.

>>2445479
Of course. There's no concept without language.

>>2445492
Says who? That's not a definition, that's a tautology.

>>2445496
I wasn't defining "concept" retard, I was stating that
>There are experiences and concepts wherof one cannot speak.
is wrong.

>>2445501
>"By natural boundaries I mean principally those beyond which a semiotic approach cannot go; for there is non-semiotic territory since there are phenomena that cannot be taken as sign-functions."
Unmberto Eco, and there's something like it in the introduction of nearly any book on semiotics.

>(Na) The concept F is equinumerous to the concept G. (There are as many objects falling under concept F as under concept G, i.e. there are as just as many F’s as G’s.)

>(Nb) The number of F’s is identical with the number of G’s. (The number that belongs to the concept F is the same as the number that belongs to the concept G.)
Frege ultimately showing that we conceive of the Bedeutung, concept, or sense before a sign.

>>2445557
is this supposed to prove that I'm wrong?

>>2445565
>prove
Keep being dumb, kid.

>>2445567
Keep being unable to use a real argument, fag.

>>2445574
I believe there is an underlying sense of mad in that sign.

>>2445578
Mad as FUCK.

>>2445565
Read moar.

>>2445588
Well, is THIS supposed to prove me wrong? Also, "read moar" is still not a remotely acceptable argument. And I'd still maintain my thought about the existence of a concept whereof one cannot speak, being bullshit (because of reasons I exposed previously).

>>2445438
yes, the inexpressible. they cannot relate to anything in the world.

>>2446009
But that's not accurate. An inexpressible concept is not even possible, it needs some kind of language to be an abstract idea. And doesn't an experience that's not expressible by a language just needs the invention of a new term to express it?

>>2446022
>needs
>need
fixed.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

>>2446022
>And doesn't an experience that's not expressible by a language just needs the invention of a new term to express it?
And as already pointed out by Frege, one must conceptualise before naming. To name Red we must first have the sense and concept of Red.

Therefore, what we can rightly call a concept is itself outside of semiotics. As pointed out by Eco, semiotics isn't so much about the truth but how we can lie.

>>2446046
Yes, but doesn't understanding a concept imply a (maybe in a simplistic way) formulation of it in a concrete language?

>>2446009
>they cannot relate
You're personifying the phenomena.

>>2446022

it's quite accurate.... if language doesn't "picture" something, i.e. represent any facts (that so and so is the case) then it is meaningless.

as pointed out in >>2446046, if we can conceptualize it we can name it. if you cannot conceptualize it, we cannot name it.

there is some question whether we can "hint" at it. imagine the sickening horror provoked by watching an animal slowly die before you. imagine an event that happened 5 minutes ago. perhaps we can "hint" and these things, though they are not parts of the world. (the past is not part of the present on this view, and an emotional reaction is something "private" and "withing us".)

>>2446213
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

>>2446213
I understand that we can only name it if we can conceptualize it, but doesn't conceptualization imply the use of some language? Some kind of intuitive description we relate to?

>>2446344
No.

>>2446344
yes.

>>2446346
>>2446351
Maybe.

>>2446346
>>2446351
>>2446362

There's the crux of the issue.

Thoughts are fluid and nebulous. You can think in concrete terms, using language in a literal internal monologue. However, you don't have to. I've had thoughts that were very difficult to express, where they were complex and there were subtle but important distinctions. It might have been an issue of my not being skilled enough with language to express these thoughts, or it might simply have taken more words to express them accurately - or maybe neither. Maybe the words don't exist.

As I said, thoughts can be vague and nebulous. The mind is plastic. It's absolutely possible for a thought to exist that defies expression with traditional language.

So, to address the OP directly: no. The limits of language only limit communication, not perception.

>>2446400
> It's absolutely possible for a thought to exist that defies expression with traditional language.

ops question was clearly formulated in wittgesteinian terms and this fact in combination with the attached picture could have been enough clues for you to figure out in which system were moving.

Language as the sign of the entities that compose our thoughts? Yes.

>>2446499
Why would we use Wittgenstein's terms? Just because he wrote about it popularly first? This is a question for linguists.

>>2446499
>>2446400
>traditional language
You don't go far enough. see >>2446315
We can conceive of something which cannot be signified, but we can talk of its inability to be signified.

So, was Orwell right about Newspeak actually making people incapable of deep thoughts?

no, there are things I can express without words, and while I love language and probably could express almost anything I would need to in words, actions are more poignant. Fighting, sex, drugs, many other visceral actions have the ability to go beyond words into a wonderfully fascinating but ultimately scary realm of undefinable.

Words are not the limit of one's world, they are simply one of the restrictions on how much of that individual world can be shared.

When the topic of the philosophy of language comes up, why does everyone only talk about Wittgenstein? Has no one read Ernest Gellner's Words and Things? (I haven't)

j.l. austin should be a must read if one is to be interested in language

>>2446854
I've read some of Ernest Gellner's political theory / sociology stuff (summary: it's real good) but not his language stuff, sorry

>>2446538

Because the statement that the limits of my language are the limits of my world come directly from his first book.

>>2445111
Firstly, you can't seem to tell the difference between signifier and signified, so there's not much reason to take you seriously. The smell of toast is signified by "the smell of toast."

Secondly, speaking scientifically there can be no such thing as raw feels for humans as our brains are always interpreting things with reference to the past paradigm. This utilization past paradigm is part of what Wittgenstein means by language: one recalls a specific memory that is distinguished from others by some notable property. The faculty is linguistic. New experience is how your world expands.

>>2443100
>>2443100
>>2443100
>>2443100
>>2443100

>mein Gesicht wenn this thread only mentions heidegger once when speaking of worlds, and no one but one even acknowledges.

That's a tautology.

What we have no words for, we have no words for. (if you define "world" is "that sphere which is inhabited by language")

The true Poet and Thinker LEAPS into the nothingness and retrieves/receives the constructive/destructive saying that worlds man's historical destiny.

You guys take concepts such as "sign", "signified", "signified', "language", and other atrophied hypostatizations too seriously. You speak of them as if they were transcendental categories.

Even if you cannot speak with-sense about something, you can speak without-sense about something. Lots of analytic philosophers write books about "Ethics" despite Ethics being ultimately idle chatter.

>Are the limits of your language the limits of your world, /lit/?
There were a whole range of anthropologists and philosophers in the early 20th century who thought so. Their ideas were based on misconception about the language of tribal people, like that a certain tribe of native Americans had no word for "time", which explains why they're more patient than us, or that certain South American tribes have no numbers bigger than two, which explains why they're less materialistic than us. The native American thing ended up being wrong, and a lot of the assumptions made about tribal lifestyle in general ended up being complete horseshit that was made up mostly because of the noble savage ideal that was so in vogue at the time.

In other words: FUCKING NO. Language is hardwired into our brain, and into the brain of no other animal. If we don't have a word for something, we invent it. Were we unable to invent computers or the internet because we didn't have words for them? Please.

By language do you mean verbal? It does by restricting detailed and nuanced reflection, but not completely, as other mediums provide forms of reflection (sound, visuals). But if by language you encompass all forms of expression, yea.

>>2447588
Interesting... But even if language is hard-wired it still means our world is confined by our language, but since language can be expanded, so can our world.

>>2447612
I think this is exactly the point. Our world is ultimately limited to our language, but our mind is wired such that either could expand.

>>2447620
So the relationship between the world and our language exists, but theoretically there is no limit as language is dynamic.
Race or culture are not inherent qualities that precede language -it is the opposite.
But then this justifies paternalism and the noble savage ideal, since the only inherent quality is "hard wired language" which indicates the potential to convert/assimilate.
But can the very "wiring" be variable between individuals? Certainly if it is biologically determined and subject to selective forces.

>>2447641
How the hell does this imply paternalism or the noble savage? And when was it ever stated that language is hard wired? The concept of the dynamic language is rooted in meta-programming. This is, like, the total opposite of hard wiring.

>>2447620

It's not. Read Wittgenstein.

>>2447670
Vy? Is Wittgenstein a vitty fellow?

>>2447670
Wittgenstein is about as qualified to discuss the architecture of the human mind as Xeno was to discuss trajectory.

>>2447670
Wittgenstein is about as qualified to discuss the architecture of the human mind as Zeno was to discuss trajectory.

>>2447673
>>2447676

You have to know what OP is talking about before you can contribute to the discussion. "The limits of my language are the limits of your world" means something very specific.

>>2447659
>How the hell does this imply paternalism or the noble savage?
It legitimizes the paternalistic approach to indigenous people since only linguistic capability is inherent (and presumed universally or relatively identical between humans), what noble/savage "world" native people see are cultural values that can be replaced by a matter of education, and expanding their language into the domain of "civilization," which is exactly what the paternalistic did.

>And when was it ever stated that language is hard wired? The concept of the dynamic language is rooted in meta-programming. This is, like, the total opposite of hard wiring.
I mean dynamic in a naive sense. But perhaps meta-programming capabilities are themselves "hardwired" into the brain's physiology.

>>2446344
like Russell and Frege he's probably going to hold that names name in virtue of being disguised descriptions. except for indexicals which are pure names ("this", "that", "those", etc.)

that's because the world is made up of facts, which is to say propositions, which is to say sentences.

thoughts therefore are made up of facts, which is to say propositions, which is to say sentences.

language also.

now if we cannot say it, we cannot think it. and if we cannot think it, it is not a part of the world and we must remain silent.

this brings us full circle! there is the inexpressible in speech. those things cannot relate to objects in the world.

>>2447737
>now if we cannot say it, we cannot think it. and if we cannot think it, it is not a part of the world and we must remain silent.

Both of these claims are false. What do you think people without a language do? Not-think? Of course they think. Most thinking is even unconscious and has little if anything to do with language. This claim was debunked years ago, even if it is cool.

Of course there are things that are part of the world but humans cannot think of. Duh.

>>2447777

1. i'm talking about the Tractatus. don't get involved with a book you never read.

2. if the thinking is structured it is linguistic. call it the language of thought.

3. your post is void of argument or proof, and i can't help but feel you felt like a big shot for having written it.

>>2447777

they have linguistic faculties which distinguish objects from one another.

>>2447777

not that you'll care, but it's also worth mentioning for those who do care, that Wittgenstein holds in the Tractatus that language EXPRESSES thoughts.

this means:

1. if one has thoughts, they can be expressed in language (even if we imagine one lacks language, were they to have a language they would be able to express their thoughts)

2. language that does not express thoughts is meaningless, as it isn't ABOUT anything.

to reiterate my point in a slightly different way:

if it is part of the world it can be thought, and if it can be thought it can be said; if it cannot be thought, it cannot be expressed; if it is not part of the world, then it is not a fact, and it cannot be thought, nor expressed, and as such, we should remain silent.

>>2447788

I read it in high school years ago.

>>2447823

Neither of those follow in the formulation that you have stated them in any obvious or straightforward interpretation.

>if it is part of the world it can be thought
Same claim as before. Still disputed.

>if it can be thought it can be said
Dubious.

>if it cannot be thought, it cannot be expressed
I'm okay with this.

>if it is not part of the world, then it is not a fact
Totally of facts definition there, given that, sure.

>and it cannot be thought, nor expressed, and as such, we should remain silent.
I don't think this follows from the other that you stated, and in any case, it is a rather pointless thing to say. If it cannot be said, what is the point of saying that we should not say it? No need for that.

As can be seen, I'm not a big fan of Wittgenstein. He is much like Nietzsche. Good for witticisms and catch phrases. Wittgenstein surely had some interesting ideas, but he was an awful writer. I am thankful he was not my teacher.

Fools. All Wittgenstein is saying is that language is equivalent to first order logic.

>>2447869
>I read it in high school years ago.

You didn't understand it.

>>2447869

he's already fucking defined things this way....

it can be disputed, ok. but i'm talking about what the Tractautus says.

unsure if you are troll or dumb.....