[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 52 KB, 288x384, Wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21663332 No.21663332 [Reply] [Original]

Has there ever been an attempt to synthasise Wittgenstein and Kant's 'Thing in itself'? As in language that exists independantly to human experience? Such reactions as laughing to something amusing or squeeling when injured. Something that happens without any contact with human society or experience? Would that be as close you could get?

>> No.21663345

Wittgenstein already elucidates such things in PI.

>> No.21663369

>>21663345
But wouldn't the concept of nuomona as a world of things outside human experience be meaningless in his system of: True/False/Meaningless?

>> No.21663440

>>21663332
>Such reactions as laughing to something amusing or squeeling when injured
These are inarticulate, non-intentional reactions to stimuli, not “language” as such. You’d have to stretch your definition of language to mean “communication” in a very broad sense, and even then, laughing or squealing isn’t necessarily communicating to a recipient. To talk about language outside of human experience is incoherent because there is no outside-text, language is a self-referential/self-reflexive system that cannot operate outside of its own internal logic.

>> No.21663448

>>21663369
It isn't meaningless, but it doesn't matter since Wittgenstein was a retard. (btw, Kant was not interested philosophically in the noumena either).

>> No.21663479

>>21663332
DUDE!!!! why u giving away what could be the basis of a fruitful study that could grant you access to the upper echelons of acedemia?
fuck is wrong witchu?

>> No.21663493

>>21663440
See I think squeeling has communication in it, when you're hurt by something and you squeel or if you hear somebody squealling you would know that the person is conveying that something harmful has been interacted with and it being an innate reaction shows that it comes from something outside of our experience. Laughter also communicates that there is no visable threat present etc.
>>21663479
I want to see if the Witt anons here think I'm retarded.

>> No.21663553

>>21663493
>>21663332
Sweet child I have to suggest learning philosophy without proper academic setting is not possible.

The thing in itself is not knowable. At all. There is no way to know it and that’s Kants main conclusion.

Wittgenstein attempted to escape kant by building a new way of thought but in the end he resolved that mysticism and Christianity where the answer necessarily.

And that word necessarily is a precise word with specific meaning and that word is key.

>> No.21663589

>>21663553
>The thing in itself is not knowable. At all. There is no way to know it and that’s Kants main conclusion.
Because it's impossible to strip something like a table down to where it exists outside of human experience. Langauge is innate in us, the human itself can possess something which can exist without our experience of it. Our senses can't present to us a representation of language which comes from something as innate as a scream which is totally reflexive. We don't need to know it but to simply know it exists.

>> No.21663883

>>21663332
Carnap. No it's not good.

>> No.21663886

>>21663448
midwit take, you dont understand kant or Wittgenstein

>> No.21663890

>>21663553
>can't know it
>makes positive pronouncements about it
>gets btfo
>"w-we have to distinguish between the positive noumena and the negative!1!!
OH NO NO NO TII-BROS WE GOT WAY TOO COCKY

>> No.21664630

>>21663886
As a matter of fact, I do understand Kant and have read him for years. But you are right in that I don't care at all about Bainlettstein; I only read philosophy.

>> No.21664737

>>21663332
The thing-in-itself is elucidated by Husserl, Ideen 1, § 41.
Witty was simply wrong. Also, if a lion could speak, we could (potentially) understand it.

>> No.21666227

>>21663883
What makes it not good?

>> No.21666281

>>21666227
He's retarded and built an edifice on a planned construction site.

>> No.21666289

>>21663332
I vaguely recall a bunch of german autists (Kant scholars) getting extremely excited by a suggestion that Wittgenstein and the double-aspect interpretation of Kant were doing something similar, but I don't recall the details, it was 5 years ago at a conference and I was daydreaming about the tits of a cute graduate student.

>> No.21666338

>>21663493
That's not communication. That's a linguistic creature assigning meaning to terms just as language has taught him. It is no more a mode of communication as rumbling of clouds is their way to signal rain.

>> No.21666346

>>21666338
Language hasn’t thought a baby anything. A baby will cry, laugh and squeal regardless of human interaction

>> No.21666353

>>21666346
Language does not mean "everything that comes out of a living creature's mouth."

>> No.21666429

>>21666281
Oh okay, thanks.

>> No.21666541

>>21663332
Yes this is the theory of the Purva Mimamsakas who argue the eternity of the Vedas and thus of language

>> No.21666615

>>21663332
Wasn't Leibniz already attempting this with his characteristica universalis? I might be totally wrong because I haven't read him beyond Monadology.

>> No.21666844

Can we synthesize the unknowable in any appreciable way? No, the answer is no. Not really sure why this took a thread. You can all go home now.

>> No.21666954

>>21666289
Did you bang?

Was it like Heidegger's logical subjectivism?

>> No.21666956

>>21666844
I'll synthesise but dick into your bum if you don't get the fuck out of my thread.

>> No.21667063

>>21666353
No language needs to communicate something which those reflexive sounds do.

>> No.21667065

>>21666956
Why are you pretending to be me lmao

>> No.21667087

>>21667063
Then they are not language. You are arguing semantics. "Communication happens in language" is an axiom that exists within systems that work on language (reasoning for one). Physical/phenomenological world does not observe it. Those are sounds expressing the creature's reaction. Your attribution to them as language because they are aural and serve a purpose is an artifice.

>> No.21667289

>>21667065
You were too weak to maintain order in this thread so I came to fill the void. The weak perish whilst the strong gather many anonymous Mongolian basket weaving thread in their harem.

>> No.21667301
File: 41 KB, 249x250, 1668982070309122.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
21667301

>>21667289
This is the truth.

>> No.21667361

>>21667289
I was at work :(

>> No.21667384

>>21663440
Yo dawg what about like computers an shit? Ain that learnin code like a communication? That just be machine talkin

>> No.21667468

>>21667087
Communication and description is the purpose of language though, when people laugh, cry etc they do it to communicate with somebody else otherwise there would be literally no point to it. It is quite literally the most basic form of verbal communication we have.

>> No.21667584

>>21667468
Laughing and crying existed before language was. "Communication" as "purpose" is the gift of language. A horse eating bay wouldn't qualify as language, but the action does convey a purpose (it's hungry) just like crying does. You are mistaking the sign for the referent, the sign is arbitrary and points to itself. A baby crying, horse eating, thunder rumbling, these are facts of the world. By representing them in language we associate them with the larger system of 'cases' which can be deduced. This is what gives them purpose, this is what you mean by communication. The 'actual' world has no record of this abstraction that you call 'purpose'. It just is.

>> No.21667674

>>21667584
A horse eating hay isn't and producing sound doesn't attempt to communicate to a person that they are hungry though. A cry from a child is an attempt for that child to get attention even though (as we probably remember ourselves when around 4) we have no idea why we do it in the moment or why it suddenly happens. I find that much deeper than simply a sound that can be related to a certain action or emotion.

>> No.21667760

>>21663493
>if you hear somebody squealling you would know that the person is conveying that something harmful has been interacted with and it being an innate reaction shows that it comes from something outside of our experience
But it doesn’t come from something outside of experience, you squeal because you got hurt, pain is literally part of your experience. You can’t communicate something that exists beyond the capacity for language or philosophy to articulate it, and pain can be easily explained in all sorts of ways. Whereas the thing-in-itself cannot be articulated, it is always indifferent and mute to our speculations on it.

>>21667384
Find me a computer programme that can distinguish a metaphor from a statement of fact and maybe you could call it language. I know they’re “computer languages” but that’s an oversimplification (which is what coding is all about, simplifying commands so a computer can understand). if it is a language, it is a language deprived of all poetic and imaginative capabilities.

>> No.21667880

>>21663332
>As in language that exists independantly to human experience?
Excuse the midwittery, but wouldn't that just be mathematical language?

>> No.21668826

itt: people who have never read saussure, wittgensten, kant or any other big name, people love mentioning
I hate you all die die die

>> No.21670648

>>21663369
Keep in mind the analytical philosophers (and any discussion that falls in that category) are specifically arguing from the basis of the limitation of language as a tool. The concept of laughter is absurd since it is a pointer to an abstraction that is made up of arbitrary words(the joke/occurrence) while still being of the same substance (humor).

The question of meaninglessness comes down to whether things a priori are meaningless or whether language itself is meaningless and all that exists is things in themselves. This conclusion is what I take to be the transcendental conclusion of this kind of reasoning. To mathematically analyze language until it returns to meaninglessness.

>> No.21670677

>>21663332
>As in language that exists independantly to human experience?
the only thing i could think of would be math but that’s a stretch desu

>> No.21670737

>>21670648
I think it follows the bell curve midwit meme, language seems most important since it precludes everything else, so why even start to discuss things without starting and ending all discussion at language? Both the dumbest and the smartest people don't think about this because they know it doesn't matter, only midwits get caught up in thinking they've figured it all out by going nowhere. Not to say analytical philosophy has nothing to be gleaned from, its just doesn't need to be the showstopper we're inclined to believe it is.

>> No.21671154

i think alan moore discusses this somewhere but i forget where