[ 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: 1.45 MB, 1364x736, ludwig-wittgenstein-swansea.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6951275 No.6951275 [Reply] [Original]

1. Language had to be made
>No one has come out of the womb speaking a language, thus it is not in "nature"
>language would be based from the human framework of feelings and senses.

2. First "words" were names. Possibly basic gestures signifying simple commands or objects.
>things immediately around them, "the real".
>simple gestures, such as hunger, could easily be one of the first "words" as it expresses both a desire and satisfaction.

3. Language, like all tools, had to be developed and continued to evolve which required a long time.
>Primative culture consisted of passing "names" down at first
>slowly more names, and thus more possibilities were added to explain the world
>eventually language would develop to a point where there would be nothing "unutterable"

This was our first act of "science", a way of understanding the world. Did gravity exist before its discovery? Yes, it was always there, we simply gave it a name. This concept would be the same of a nameless world.

Eventually terms that are "not real", human constructs, would emerge. A primitive "tribe" would name itself a "tribe", things would be the same, but they could contextualize themselves as a whole, which would allow thoughts such as, what should the tribe do?
This would be similar to the brain naming itself. Names were originally intended to contextualize what there already was.

What if consciousness requires a framework to operate within, language would be that framework.

This would mean that without the things external of us we could not have become conscious, and without us nothing would be conscious.
Assuming we are simply the pinnacle of evolution of work, and thus still animals, it is such an absurd idea to believe we are animals capable of remembering an incredibly complex pattern of sounds that allow us to become articulate?
If this was true, it would suggest that the reason we are so divided is because our concepts of different words are incredibly different. Because of our circumstances growing up, if we lacked say a caring mother and father, we would be more like to fill out concepts of specific words with our friends and culture. It would fill in gaps.
Maybe the reason we continue to repeat history is because we continue trusting in things that are written down, instead of worrying how things should be.

>> No.6951291

You kind of lost me at the last paragraph. Nevertheless, it seems quite obvious that language greatly affects how we think.

>> No.6951311

>>6951275
Here's a tip OP:

Actually fucking read Wittgenstein and don't post a pic of him just because you're talking about language and try to give the impression that you understand his work.

Like, seriously, the fucking first 100 or so sections of Philosophical Investigations BTFO of everything you just said.

>> No.6951314

>>6951291
Imagine a poor black kid that grows up in the Ghetto. If we imagine this kid had grown up in a atmosphere of violence and little support we would imagine he would also go down this path?

Why would that happen if he knows it's wrong? He doesn't, becoming violent for him, is normal, from his perspective.

If he saw that the people who ran the criminal organization also gave money and support to people around him, he would have a different concept of what "good" is.

His would involved doing what needs to be done, in this case criminal activity, and giving it out to people from there.

Other ways of being good might not even occur to him.

It's like the Lord of the Rings, Sauron believed that everyone on the planet was as power driven as he was, which clouded his perception. For him, destroying the ring, was not a thought that was possible.

I guess what I am saying is that keeping kids in the ghetto with poor education keeps them in the ghetto. I'm just trying to explain why it's encapsulated within language.

>> No.6951317

Naming something means to differentiate. Language exists to cut things apart, not to bring things together. We are only always talking what things are not.

>> No.6951319

>>6951311
Considering his contemporaries had to be schooled by him as to what he really thought, I have a difficult time believing you or I know what he was trying to say fully.

Explain, even if it's with simple passages to check (the books short after all), where I can find where I am "BTFO".

>> No.6951335

>>6951319
I do; you don't.

2. First "words" were names. Possibly basic gestures signifying simple commands or objects.
Sections 1-38 is a critique of exactly this

>> No.6951343

Fuck off, Augustine.

>> No.6951370

>>6951275
You literally concluded:
>people have different opinions about things and are therefore conflicting
and
>maybe we should be more open about stuff.

With Wittgenstein... Falsely...

Back to the books, Anon.
You came out wrong.

>> No.6951422
File: 242 KB, 1280x984, 1439027578934.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6951422

We need a One World Language. My creative suggestion is a mixture of English and Deutsch, but that doesn't matter, german has random noun genders and english has arbitrary spelling. So what is important? It needs to be artificial, logical, non-rhetorical, deep, clear. If I speak Korean or Portuguese, my concept of language is that there are many languages, that is invented. That is a useless definition of language, and it decreases our reasoning because it leads you to learn different sounds and notation for the same thing, instead of common references to new things. One of the things that allows world peace, by a huge correlation, is a common language. English teacher should be also Math teacher, Math is part of language. The rhetorical aspect of English(and come on, every natural language) though, is what makes this a problem. We should Make the best language humans can possibly create and name it LANGUAGE! This way we will stop losing time with signs and start building on Meaning without all this fucking confusion!

>> No.6951435

>>6951422
>what was esperanto?

keep dreaming, spooked kid

>> No.6951458

>>6951435
You see, look how rhetorical you are. You are almost some unrational animal that I have to give attention to. You really think I don't know about esperanto. It is like you want to pretend me and everyone else you talk with are stupid so you can be optimistic about your future.

>> No.6951459

>>6951275
so much wrong i dont know where to begin

>Gravity was always there, we simply gave it a name

And giving something a name does not mean we have achieved a total understanding of the thing we named. You yourself give an unwitting example of Wittgenstein's analysis of language; that it structures our reality. You presume something called gravity exists, but gravity is not the objective thing, it is a word we use to refer to something that exceeds our understanding (for example, there isn't yet a synthesis of quantum mechanics and general relativity). Equations as well, no matter how elegant or cutting, are ultimately symbols of human creation, and of limited (read:subjective) minds.

>Assuming we are simply the pinnacle of evolution of work

We aren't the pinnacle of evolution. Your first error is to believe evolution is progressive. It's not. Second, even if evolution WAS progressive, the pinnacle would be the organism that can survive in the greatest variety of environments. Humans are out of the running pretty quickly. The range of moisture, temperature, radiation, etc., we can live in is limited compared to organisms like insects.

>Names were originally intended to contextualize what there already was

What about abstract and metaphysical names like "god" or "virtue," grammatical future and conditional verb tenses, names for imaginary creatures?

>Without us nothing would be conscious

There were many organisms we can reasonably assume were conscious before humans appeared on earth.

>What if consciousness requires a framework to operate within, language would be that framework

There are conscious organisms that do not have language. You may try to argue that an organism like a fish has language based on subtle flicks of the tail, but if you are going to stretch your definition of language to encompass any kind of movement of organic life you'd have to dismantle your own human-exceptionalism argument.

Overall I don't understand what you're trying to say in your word-vomit. If you support something Wittgenstein said, why not just quote him? If you are arguing against, why not cite a passage?

>> No.6951463

>>6951458
>You are almost some unrational animal
GOAT rhetorics with that ad hominem my man.
Tone and form of my response was proportional to your idea. Stupid and naive.

>> No.6951466

>>6951463
Whatever, superretard

>> No.6951473

>>6951422

I much rather have a world were you're rewarded in great ways just because you took the time to learn different languages.

>> No.6951476

>>6951422

That will never happen, since language is heavily influenced by culture. Only when we have one huge amalgam of races, countries and cultures can we strive to create a unified language.

Otherwise it will neither happen nor be sustainable even if it did.

>> No.6951486

>>6951422
>One World Language

read this as "One Word Language"

>> No.6951493

>>6951486

Hodor?

>> No.6951501

>>6951486
Tao Lin?

>> No.6951503

>>6951466
Do you really want anyone on this board to seriously refute your Russell-Brand-tier idea of common language? There are plenty of irrefutable arguments countering your concept. Have you ever considered that emotional and cultural attachment to languages for certain ethnic groups? Why should we destroy the variety of languages, which mastering is one of the highest achievements of humanities.

>Why there are different clothes than white tees if they are comfy, easy-to-made and aesthetic? amrite guys?

>> No.6951508

>>6951473
You are being very honest, I appreciate it

>> No.6951511

>>6951473
Lmao gay

>> No.6951522

>>6951476
Nah, we just need a great white empire like the English empire.

>Why should we destroy the variety of languages, which mastering is one of the highest achievements of humanities.
That is so stupid, I don't even... Fuck off.

>> No.6951523 [DELETED] 
File: 53 KB, 404x604, hand sign.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6951523

What are these hand gestures called

what do they mean

>> No.6951525

>>6951522
>>Why should we destroy the variety of languages, which mastering is one of the highest achievements of humanities.
>That is so stupid, I don't even... Fuck off.
Read some Pound.

>> No.6951530

>>6951523
hand gesture for divinity.
learn to art

>> No.6951538

OP shouldn't have used Wittgenstein. We get it you sophists.

And maybe Wittgenstein refuted this himself.

I'd like to see anon display some sort of understanding of these concepts, instead of namedropping.

>> No.6951542

>>6951523
It's the hand signal autistics make when they're trying to think about the deeper meanings of life.

>> No.6951565

>>6951538
What concepts? I have an MA in Phil., Wittgenstein as my primary interest.

>> No.6951609

>>6951314
That has to do with exposure to culture, not language. You want to show the ghetto kid how successful people live, not teach him a new language.

>> No.6951646

>First "words" were names. Possibly basic gestures signifying simple commands or objects.
Stopped reading here.

The word "words" 'were names'? Are you dimwitted? Why don't you learn to distinguish between 'use' and 'mention' before you read someone like Wittgenstein?

The rest reads like an obscure, auto-didactic slapdash exegesis of W which comes nowhere close to what Wittgenstein was actually trying to convey.

>> No.6951719

>>6951523
The four fingers represent four aspects of man: intellectuality (index finger, points, defines, name things), sexuality/creativity (middle finger, phallic, stretching out of the pattern, powerful), emotionality (ring finger, the finger of bonding and marriage) and corporal (pinky finger, the extremity of the hand, moves by itself accompanying the others). The thumb works on a different axis and is used to give a new dimension to each one of those things, put it to use, activate it. In that image, the ring finger connected with the thumb shows a deep emotional marriage with the divinity.

This works for medieval europe, the indian mudras have it differently, but on similar principles, worth taking a look. Also look at playing cards and tarot cards (spades: intellect, hearts: emotion, clubs: sex, diamond/gold/coins: corporal).

>> No.6951937

Can anybody tell me where to start with Wittgenstein?

>> No.6951972
File: 17 KB, 383x630, cigs_sluts_and_logic.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6951972

>>6951937
If you would have looked him up you knew he only wrote two books in his lifetime.

One is on how logic can be used to formalize language and ends with him saying "don't speak about that which can't be consistently captured with logic".
The other is a criticism of our understanding of language, arguably not offering an alternative.

You start with the first book. Reading a modern introduction on (predicate) logic helps, because W's book is 100 years old when people (the Vienna circle) was just figuring shit out.

>> No.6951975

>>6951937
"Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius" by Ray Monk —> when you get to the Tractatus parts read the Tractatus and consult Monk's book for help (you don't need to understand every single detail of the Tractatus; after all, you can always read it again) —> continue with Monk —> when you get to the Investigations parts read the Investigations and consult Monk's book for help (again, you don't need to get everything on your first pass)

Other good stuff:
"Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language" by Saul Kripke—although the "solution" Kripke attributes to Witt. is a misreading.
"Routledge Guidebook to Philosophical Investigations" by Marie McGinn is probably the best book on the Investigations there is.
"How to read Wittgenstein" by Ray Monk. A very short and easy book for beginners.
"What's the Point of Elucidation?", an essay by Phil Hutchinson. Explains the different interpretations of Witt. and argues for the correct one (the therapeutic one).

Here are some podcasts:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0054945
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03ggc19

>> No.6953022

>>6951317

Isn't that a Derridean/Heideggerean thought?

>> No.6953157

>>6951522
When a language goes extinct, an entire world disappears with it.

>> No.6953854

>>6953157
some worlds are shit tho

>> No.6954243

>>6951486
Already exists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysynthetic_language

>> No.6955736

>>6951493
Reddit?

>> No.6955749

>No one has come out of the womb speaking a language, thus it is not in "nature"
how do you figure?