back to the beginning: the limitations of language

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby iambiguous » Thu Aug 12, 2021 4:28 pm

iambiguous wrote:From Bryan Magee's Confessions of a Philosopher:

...all that language can do is to indicate with the utmost generality and in the broadest and crudest of terms what it is that I see. Even something as simple and everyday as the sight of a towel dropped on the bathroom floor is inaccessible to language----and inaccessible to it from many points of view at the same time: no words to describe the shape it has fallen into, no words to describe the degrees of shading in its colors, no words to describe the differentials of shadow in its folds....I see all these things at once with great precision...with clarity and certainty, and in all of their complexity. I possess them all wholly and surely in direct experience, and yet I would be totally unable...to put that experience in words. It is emphatically not the case, then, that 'the world is the world as we describe it', or that I 'experience it through linguistic categories that help to shape the experiences themselves' or that my 'main way of dividing things up is in language' or that my 'concept of reality is a matter of our linguistic categories'.


iambiguous wrote:Imagine, for example, abortion is made unconstitutional. It is now a capital crime to either perform or obtain one. Mary and Joe are having a conversation about it. Lots and lots of words go back and forth. Mary is pregnant and wants an abortion. Joe impregnated her and thinks abortion is unethical. Joe, of course, is biologically exempt from ever having to endure the horrific ordeal of being forced to give birth. But he goes on and on and on stringing words together in what he believes to be a logically impeccable manner. He cites Kant and the categorical imperative and deontology and ethical obligations that are "universally applicable". But he just can't seem to understand, given the rational manner in which he encompasses the situation, why Mary doesn't seem to "get it".


Parodites wrote: First of all, the first paragraph is simply wrong, on just about every level. 1) We do in fact have words to describe nearly any shape a towel or anything else could fall into, (in higher mathematics, we have 10,000 words to describe even higher-dimensional objects and the infinite topological manipulations of objects in higher dimensions) it's just that it would be both laborious and unprofitable to describe such a thing in such detail. That's why most people don't have such words in their vocabulary- they have no use for them. There wasn't any blue shit in ancient Greece so they didn't bother linguistically specifying shades of blue.


Okay, laborious or not, take a towel from your bathroom and drop it on the floor. More in a heap than flat as a pancake. Describe the shape that results. Ask others to describe it as well. See how close you can come to the shape of the towel. At least make the attempt. Otherwise we'll just have to take your word for it.

As for this numbingly ponderlous intellectual contraption...

Parodites wrote: 2) Second of all: you don't even possess all of that rich multiplicity in your immediate direct experience anyway, which Magee claims we do. You just think you possess it, when in reality, this 'multiplicity' is just a bunch of representational gaps. Your experience of a totality in this multiplicity is just a mental illusion. Close your eyes and imagine a flock of birds, then open them. How many birds were in that flock? You know it couldn't be like 10,000, but it also can't be fewer than 5 or 6. You know it wasn't just one or two birds. But there is not actually any number of birds in the flock. (Borges' Argumentum Ornithologia.) You just imagined a flock of birds without any specific number of birds. How's that possible? Did you access the Platonic form of a flock of birds that exists without any phenomenal or specific number? No. It's possible because your impression of there being a totality or 'completeness' to your immediate experience is just a mental illusion supported by empty placeholders that don't actually correspond to anything real. That same thought experiment with the birds and the flock applies to your continuous daily, waking experience of the world: most of it is just an illusory sense of totality, of there not being any 'gaps' in your immediate experience. (When you walk in a room and glance at a pile of dishes, this is supported by the same mental illusion as the flock of birds.) But there are such gaps. Most of it is just gaps, and language exists to close and to fill those gaps in our immediate experience.

As to the later bit of text, are you suggesting that our immediate emotional and physical affective state trumps rationality in delimiting ethical boundaries? Because if you are, it seems a bit self-defeating. You're using language and reason to argue that language and reason are not sufficient in such a delimitation of the ethical. And by criminalizing late term abortion, nobody is 'forcing' a woman to give birth anymore than we all forced her to have sex in the first place and become impregnated.


...it can't possibly be further removed from my own interest in the limitations of language. Back to Mary and Joe and the abortion. The actual abortion itself as a medical procedure can be encompassed in very precise language. Nothing at all like the towel heaped on the floor. The doctors go from step to step explaining specifically what must be done in order to accomplish the procedure successfully. And safely. At least for the pregnant woman.

Which is what you are attempting to do with respect to the morality of abortion. You insist that , "nobody is 'forcing' a woman to give birth anymore than we all forced her to have sex in the first place and become impregnated" as though the woman either chooses to give birth at any juncture from the point of conception or, what, be arrested for premeditated murder, tried and then, if convicted, sent to prison? Or, in some states here in America, to death row?

And what if she had not chosen to have sex but was, in fact, forced to. Or was raped. And what if giving birth could result in grave physical harm to herself?

There are countless individual contexts in which hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables can be different.

But, what, you'd take it upon yourself to encompass each situation with the precise language needed to describe it? And with the optimal or the only rational ethical prescription the woman is obligated to share?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43305
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 23, 2021 4:31 pm

The Tractatus…is it so intractable?
Carlos Muñoz-Suárez guides us on a trip down the linguistic rabbit hole.

Picturing the Picture Theory

Language and thought now enter the scene. On the basis of this abstract description of reality, Wittgenstein introduces the underpinnings of what is sometimes called (by other philosophers) ‘the Picture Theory of Language’: “We picture facts to ourselves”. According to this theory, the structure of true things said about the world (and so also thought about it) mirrors the structure of the world itself: “A picture is a model of reality” – in the sense that “in a picture objects have the elements of the picture corresponding to them”.


Okay, picture something. Picture whatever facts you can imagine about it. Describe it abstractly. Then if challenged connect the dots between your words and the world that whatever you are picturing contains it. How close do you get to a "structure of the world itself" such that almost no one will challenge you?

Isn't that basically the bottom line when connecting/communicating the dots between words and worlds? And isn't that more or less where I draw the line between descriptions in the either/or world and prescriptions/proscriptions in the is ought world.

Now all we need is a context. What can our words describe such that no rational human being is likely to challenge us? And what will our prescriptive and proscriptive words very likely precipitate but all manner of challenges?

The "evaluation" part:

We are able to evaluate what we say in terms of truth and falsehood, since “a picture agrees with reality or fails to agree; it is correct or incorrect, true or false”. Yet pictures don’t only represent facts, they can also represent possible states of affairs. Please note though that the term ‘picture’ is itself a picture, a metaphor. Wittgenstein doesn’t mean images in your mind, but rather a way of (metaphorically) seeing the world through language.


Only it's one thing for a doctor to picture an abortion as a medical procedure and another thing altogether for that same doctor to picture the exact moment from conception to birth when the unborn becomes an actual human being. Let alone the aggregation of words that pictures for us whether the abortion was either moral or immoral.

As for this, however...

"Wittgenstein doesn’t mean images in your mind, but rather a way of (metaphorically) seeing the world through language."

...how on earth would our words [pictured or otherwise] go about seeing an abortion through language alone?

Instead, the language is always derived from the brain/mind of a particular individual out in a particular world reacting to this abortion in a particular manner. The part I root in dasein and others root in entirely different things.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43305
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 01, 2021 5:08 pm

The Tractatus…is it so intractable?
Carlos Muñoz-Suárez guides us on a trip down the linguistic rabbit hole.

The Picture Theory is introduced in the Tractatus in two steps. The first explains how the structure of thoughts (or propositions) mirrors the structure of reality: “The fact that the elements of a picture are related to one another in a determinate way represents that things are related to one another in the same way”.


Things. Objective things interacting with other objective things. So, sure, if you picture them in your mind and attempt to connect the dots between thoughts [propositions], language, and the structure of reality, it can certainly be as close to a mirror image as we are likely to get given "the gap". In fact you can take a camera and literally snap a picture of what you are trying to convey in a world of words. They don't remind us that "a picture is worth a thousand words" for nothing.

Instead, my own interest in language revolves more around interacting moral and political prejudices that do not lend themselves to snapshots at all. The pictures exchanged can at times barely resemble each other. Introducing us to the limitations of language in any number of contexts.

The second step explains how the structure of language mirrors the structure of reality since, as Wittgenstein claims, “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world”.


This has never seemed reasonable to me. On the other hand, what are the odds that I understand fully what he meant by it? Language may or may not mirror the structure of reality. And, in part, that is because, given any description of any particular context, it may or may not be able to. Even in the either/or world just because your language isn't an exact reflection of the world around you doesn't doesn't make the reality of the world around you go away. It's always the part where the limitations of your language mirrors one reality while the limitations of another's language mirrors a very different reality where we might get closer to this: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

To Wittgenstein, there are correlations between the logical structure of language and the logical structure of reality. “These correlations are, as it were, the feelers of the picture’s elements, with which the picture touches reality”. Because of how he thinks of the relationships between language, thought and reality, Wittgenstein thinks the logical structure of language and thought shows the logical structure of reality. However, we can picture the reality, but not the relationships between those pictures and the reality of things themselves.


Yes, but only regarding those aspects of human interaction where the rules of language can be shown to be applicable to all of us. Language, thought and reality in a more or less perfect alignment...but only because they can be.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43305
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby iambiguous » Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:08 pm

The Tractatus…is it so intractable?
Carlos Muñoz-Suárez guides us on a trip down the linguistic rabbit hole.

According to the Tractatus, the meaningful constituents of language are propositions. To Wittgenstein, “A proposition is a picture of reality… a model of reality as we imagine it”, and “the totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science (or the whole corpus of the natural sciences)”. Moreover, “To understand a proposition means to know what is the case if it is true”, and “a proposition can be true or false only in virtue of being a picture of reality”).


Yes, if you are a natural scientist. And if, instead, you are a social scientist? Or a political scientist? Or a psychologist? Or an ethicist?

Here of course what makes things particularly [and sometimes profoundly] problematic is that in regard to social interactions, political interactions, human psychology, moral contexts etc., there are actual facts that can be established as applicable to all rational people. Instead, it's in how we interpret the interaction of these facts given conflicting value judgments regarding how some insist they ought to be interpreted that brings on the especially murky or incongruous or contentious pictures of reality.

Then what, Mr. Epistemologist?

But you can guess the proposition that will be explored here:

Now, take the proposition ‘the cat is on the chair’, and imagine the spatial arrangement of the cat being on the chair. That arrangement – cat on chair – is what Wittgenstein calls the sense of the proposition. The sense of a proposition is the state of affairs to which it corresponds: “A proposition shows how things stand if it is true”. The nouns in a propositional sign (for instance, in the sentence ‘the cat is on the chair’) correspond to the things involved in the state of affairs expressed by the propositional sign), such that “a name means an object”; for instance, ‘cat’ means the cat. If there is not a cat on a chair, then the expressed proposition “will not be nonsensical… but simply false” ; yet “if a proposition has no sense, nothing corresponds to it, since it does not designate a thing” – that is, a proposition is nonsensical if there is no possible state of affairs that it pictures. Moreover, to Wittgenstein, the simple sign ‘cat’ lacks sense, since only propositions have sense.


Right, as long as the proposition revolves around a cat, a chair, and whether or not it can be determined at any particular point in time that this cat is on this chair.

But what if it's a proposition from one of these countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_meat

A proposition that revolves around killing cats, cooking them and eating them? You take the cat from the chair and butcher it for dinner. How about all of the conflicting reactions to that "picture of reality?"
Last edited by iambiguous on Sat Sep 11, 2021 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43305
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby MagsJ » Sat Sep 11, 2021 5:10 pm

_
“Wittgenstein's later works, notably the posthumously published Philosophical Investigations, criticised many of his earlier ideas in the Tractatus.”

I think that fact ^^^ makes the publication worthy of a read.. and also the fact that it’s only 75 pages long.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 22926
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby WendyDarling » Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:48 pm

The home of true philosophy Biggums style. :evilfun:

:banana-angel: :banana-blonde: :banana-dreads: :banana-explosion: :banana-fingers: :banana-gotpics: :banana-gotpics: :banana-guitar: :banana-jumprope: :banana-linedance: :banana-ninja: :banana-parachute: :banana-rainbow: :banana-rock: :banana-skier: :banana-stoner: :banana-tux: :banana-wrench:
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 9544
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Dance Floor

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby iambiguous » Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:49 pm

The Tractatus…is it so intractable?
Carlos Muñoz-Suárez guides us on a trip down the linguistic rabbit hole.

Logical & Mystical Thoughts

“Most of the propositions and questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical”.


Starting with, perhaps, "Regularity Theory" or "Value Ontology" or "RM/AO"?

The rigors of "definitional logic" producing one or another "world of words". Worlds that have almost no relevance whatsoever to the lives that we actually live from day to day.

This is Wittgenstein’s battlecry not only in the Tractatus, but also in his later writings too. In the Tractatus, this conclusion relies on specifying a logical language, in which the confusions deriving from ordinary language get excluded. A logical language is a language explicitly governed by logical syntax, or in other words, a language whose logical structure is evident.


Indeed, whatever any particular language includes and excludes can make all the difference in the world when it comes to actually communicating what we think we know about ourselves in the world around us. It's just that this communication can get considerably more problematic when we switch over from the either/or world to the is/ought world.

Note a context yourself and we can explore it.

Wittgenstein specifies a universe of logical rules that define true and false propositions. Such a universe of deep logical relations constitute the deep structure of a spoken or written language such as English, Spanish or German. But, Wittgenstein claims, “Everyday language is a part of the human organism and is no less complicated than it. It is not humanly possible to gather immediately from it what the logic of language is.” .


What then is there to do but, in regard to a particular context, make distinctions between communication derived from "a universe of logical rules that define true and false propositions" and communication derived more from language as it is used everyday. Noting where logic is able to make some propositions either true or false while other propositions become increasingly more entangled in the subjective/subjunctive nature of "ordinary language".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43305
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby iambiguous » Wed Sep 29, 2021 4:23 pm

The Tractatus…is it so intractable?
Carlos Muñoz-Suárez guides us on a trip down the linguistic rabbit hole.

While dealing with the logical structure of reality, the Picture Theory of Language, and the deep structure of language use grasped by the development of a logical language, Wittgenstein sometimes writes aphorisms which epitomise what it is often called the ‘mystical’ aspect of the Tractatus. In this vein, he claims for instance that “The world and life are one… I am my world” ; or “Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death… Our life has no end in just the way in which our visual field has no limits.”.


What is the "mystical" but the at times ineffable gap between what we want to convey through language and the limitations of language in conveying any number of things we encounter from day to day...just in going about the task of living our lives.

In particular when confronting the subjunctive frame of mind. We feel or intuit any number of things that we never seem able to pin down with the sort of precision that language almost never fails us in regard to the interactions between actual things in the either/or world. Communicate to another the day you spent with your son or daughter. The things you did together. You went to the zoo and had a picnic in the park. Words and worlds pretty much in sync. Others understand completely what you are telling them. Then your child conveys to you that he or she is gay. Try here to pin down your reaction [good or bad] such that all others will understand it and completely agree with you.

Where is the precision needed to resolve conflicting moral narratives?

Where is the precision needed to close the gap in our reaction to things like this:

The Tractatus closes with a set of aphorisms indicating Wittgenstein’s views about death, immortality, life, belief in a god, ethics and aesthetics, and other very difficult issues.


Indeed, what makes them very difficult issues is that we seem to lack the language that can make the complexities go away. It gets all tangled up instead in the existential elements that flow around the ofttimes convoluted relationship between genes and memes, nature and nurture, historical and cultural contexts.

So the Tractatus isn’t just the outcome of a genuinely great effort of thinking about logic and the structure of reality, Wittgenstein’s existential preoccupations can also be glimpsed in it.


I have my own existential preoccupations of course. Chief among them exploring the gap between the fractured and fragmented "I" in the is/ought world and the limitations of logic in examining the structure of reality.

This part:

One of the most intriguing conclusions Wittgenstein arrived at in the Tractatus is that ethical and aesthetic ideas are beyond what can be said and, therefore, beyond logical space, the space of sense.


Sound familiar, Mr. Objectivist?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43305
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 06, 2021 3:56 pm

The Tractatus
“The world is all that is the case”
José Zalabardo investigates which problem Wittgenstein is trying to solve.

For many contemporary interpreters of the Tractatus, its ultimate goal is not to answer philosophical questions or solve philosophical problems. Rather, Wittgenstein’s aim is therapeutic – to make his readers see that philosophy is not a legitimate pursuit: the problems are fictitious, the questions are meaningless, and engaging in the enterprise can produce nothing but nonsense.


Come on, we all know that's not true. It's just that we all know this in such a way that using the tools of philosophy there does not seem to be a way to pin down whether in fact it is all actually true. Of the is/ought world in particular, but even of the either/or world if we go far enough out on the metaphysical limb.

Nope, sans an omniscient God, we are all on our own in commanding the language to "get" others to understand what we say here. Let alone agree with us.

I just aim that at what I construe to be the most important philosophical question of them all: "How ought one to live?"

This may well be the right account of Wittgenstein’s intentions. There are certainly things he says in the book that can only be understood in this light. However, it would be wrong to conclude that therefore we shouldn’t try to understand what philosophical questions and problems Wittgenstein was trying to address, and how he proposes to deal with them. If Wittgenstein’s goal is the dissolution of philosophy, his proposed method requires that his readers engage in the enterprise. The therapy of the Tractatus is supposed to work through the reader’s realization that what philosophy sanctions as the right answers and solutions is nonsense; and to achieve this realisation we first need to find these answers and solutions. The ladder has to be climbed before it’s kicked away.


Now all we need is a context, right? There are clearly philosophical assessments relating to logic and epistemology which are not likely to be dissolved anytime soon. Right answers and solutions that no matter how hard you engage in the enterprise above won't even put a dent in them insofar as, say, human communication is concern. John either is or is not a bachelor no matter which ladder is kicked out from under you.

Unless of course I am not "getting" the point here. Maybe it's all entangled in how those who embrace the analytical school of philosophy go about thinking these things through differently from those who embrace the continental school.

Thus the need for a context.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43305
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:19 pm

The Tractatus
“The world is all that is the case”
José Zalabardo investigates which problem Wittgenstein is trying to solve.

The Problem

The problem makes its first recorded appearance in Plato’s work. One of Plato’s most characteristic doctrines is his ‘Theory of Forms’. This view, in a nutshell, is that when several individual things exhibit a common feature, there is something – a form – that is present in all of them.


And, as with Kant's theoretical conjectures revolving around the categorical imperative, Plato's theoretical conjectures regarding "the forms" are entirely dependent on the existence of one or another rendition of the transcending God.

For instance...

For instance, the form of beauty is present in all beautiful things; and the presence of the form of beauty in some object is what its being beautiful consists in. If we apply this template to all cases in which individuals exhibit a common feature, the result is a way of thinking according to which the world contains two types of items: particulars (this table, that chair, St Paul’s Cathedral, you, me) and universals (beauty, redness, solidity, stubbornness, acidity). Let me refer to this theory as the Platonist ontology. (An ontology is a theory about what sort of things exist.)


Theoretically in other words. An "ontology" that is basically Plato thinking it up in his head and then in regard to actual squabbles over which particular chair, table, cathedral, painting, person, etc., is more beautiful or the most beautiful who else but God is there to give us the "final answer"?

At best it can be argued that biologically, genetically we are hard wired to see certain forms or features as more pleasing to us than others.

But philosophical Forms with a capital F? Or Ethics with a capital E?

In any event, expect it to all unfold up in the clouds:

On the Platonist ontology, whatever is the case results from a combination of particulars and universals: the fact that my table is red results from the combination of a particular – my table – with a universal – redness. When a particular and a universal are combined in this way, we say that the particular instantiates the universal. What the world is like is the result of which combinations of particulars and universals it contains. My table is combined with redness, but not with roundness; redness is combined with my table, but not with my chair. Other states of the world would result from different particular-universal combinations.


Unless, you count tables.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43305
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby Meno_ » Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:54 pm

iambiguous wrote:The Tractatus
“The world is all that is the case”
José Zalabardo investigates which problem Wittgenstein is trying to solve.

The Problem

The problem makes its first recorded appearance in Plato’s work. One of Plato’s most characteristic doctrines is his ‘Theory of Forms’. This view, in a nutshell, is that when several individual things exhibit a common feature, there is something – a form – that is present in all of them.


And, as with Kant's theoretical conjectures revolving around the categorical imperative, Plato's theoretical conjectures regarding "the forms" are entirely dependent on the existence of one or another rendition of the transcending God.

For instance...

For instance, the form of beauty is present in all beautiful things; and the presence of the form of beauty in some object is what its being beautiful consists in. If we apply this template to all cases in which individuals exhibit a common feature, the result is a way of thinking according to which the world contains two types of items: particulars (this table, that chair, St Paul’s Cathedral, you, me) and universals (beauty, redness, solidity, stubbornness, acidity). Let me refer to this theory as the Platonist ontology. (An ontology is a theory about what sort of things exist.)


Theoretically in other words. An "ontology" that is basically Plato thinking it up in his head and then in regard to actual squabbles over which particular chair, table, cathedral, painting, person, etc., is more beautiful or the most beautiful who else but God is there to give us the "final answer"?

At best it can be argued that biologically, genetically we are hard wired to see certain forms or features as more pleasing to us than others.

But philosophical Forms with a capital F? Or Ethics with a capital E?

In any event, expect it to all unfold up in the clouds:

On the Platonist ontology, whatever is the case results from a combination of particulars and universals: the fact that my table is red results from the combination of a particular – my table – with a universal – redness. When a particular and a universal are combined in this way, we say that the particular instantiates the universal. What the world is like is the result of which combinations of particulars and universals it contains. My table is combined with redness, but not with roundness; redness is combined with my table, but not with my chair. Other states of the world would result from different particular-universal combinations.


Unless, you count tables.





Or, unless you double think.


and for dome that is a categorical necessity of survival.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9756
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:01 pm

Meno_ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:The Tractatus
“The world is all that is the case”
José Zalabardo investigates which problem Wittgenstein is trying to solve.

The Problem

The problem makes its first recorded appearance in Plato’s work. One of Plato’s most characteristic doctrines is his ‘Theory of Forms’. This view, in a nutshell, is that when several individual things exhibit a common feature, there is something – a form – that is present in all of them.


And, as with Kant's theoretical conjectures revolving around the categorical imperative, Plato's theoretical conjectures regarding "the forms" are entirely dependent on the existence of one or another rendition of the transcending God.

For instance...

For instance, the form of beauty is present in all beautiful things; and the presence of the form of beauty in some object is what its being beautiful consists in. If we apply this template to all cases in which individuals exhibit a common feature, the result is a way of thinking according to which the world contains two types of items: particulars (this table, that chair, St Paul’s Cathedral, you, me) and universals (beauty, redness, solidity, stubbornness, acidity). Let me refer to this theory as the Platonist ontology. (An ontology is a theory about what sort of things exist.)


Theoretically in other words. An "ontology" that is basically Plato thinking it up in his head and then in regard to actual squabbles over which particular chair, table, cathedral, painting, person, etc., is more beautiful or the most beautiful who else but God is there to give us the "final answer"?

At best it can be argued that biologically, genetically we are hard wired to see certain forms or features as more pleasing to us than others.

But philosophical Forms with a capital F? Or Ethics with a capital E?

In any event, expect it to all unfold up in the clouds:

On the Platonist ontology, whatever is the case results from a combination of particulars and universals: the fact that my table is red results from the combination of a particular – my table – with a universal – redness. When a particular and a universal are combined in this way, we say that the particular instantiates the universal. What the world is like is the result of which combinations of particulars and universals it contains. My table is combined with redness, but not with roundness; redness is combined with my table, but not with my chair. Other states of the world would result from different particular-universal combinations.


Unless, you count tables.





Or, unless you double think.


We'll need a context of course. One in which, in examining the limitations of language, it's not theoretical conjectures pertaining to tables or other either/or world entities, but existential examinations in regard to the considerably more stark limitations of language pertaining to conflicting goods.

You pick it this time. :wink:

Note to Alan:

Don't make me foe you!!!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43305
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby Meno_ » Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:06 pm

I don't feel you would do that, but I am under some time limit here, spending only another couple of days here. Incidentally, I still sorely need to edit the horrible death narrative (Yours) cause my dire eyed' limitations.
Until then, please bear with me.

I mean grin & bear it.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9756
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby iambiguous » Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:03 pm

Meno_ wrote:I don't feel you would do that, but I am under some time limit here, spending only another couple of days here. Incidentally, I still sorely need to edit the horrible death narrative (Yours) cause my dire eyed' limitations.
Until then, please bear with me.

I mean grin & bear it.


Las Vegas and philosophy. The two just come together naturally.

So, when you have the time, back to this:

We'll need a context of course. One in which, in examining the limitations of language, it's not theoretical conjectures pertaining to tables or other either/or world entities, but existential examinations in regard to the considerably more stark limitations of language pertaining to conflicting goods.


Note to Mr. Vegas:

What are the odds he'll through for me this time?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43305
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby Meno_ » Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:39 pm

The odds are in congruence with the existentially defined foundations with Buddhism.I wont even mention Taoism because in my opinion that could not cover the existential basis between how it relates to the question of Being


I can think of no better way to experience this seemingly enigmatic living AMD loved through comcept, the relating the limits of language to the evolution of thought as it kind of comes through the ranks of relationships.

When the ultimate deconstruction of specific expressions reach the levels that compete with no thought, as the doubly bound anthisesis reach rock bottom, the one can gain insight of LangE development as basically motor generally termed and less subtly and more or less relative to each other, regresding. as momotilazition of relating looses it's plasticity . as Peacegirl puts it, and this identifyable substance of these relations become more spaced out and uncertain

That Buddhism points out the value of not bound or identified attachments, the value in realizing these structural disadsociatiins within differing aspects or conditions of value, is exactly what is resisted by fear; and deferred until the time when we can no longer be conscious of them, and reach the stage of existential states we consider a passing on.

However, if we become conscious immimently, here and now of the value of non attachment, then psychologically we may not let the elements of synctactical disassociation alarm us by any form of de-onjectification, therefore the value if that will also be appreciated.
What preceded the coming of the WORD as it is raised to the level of Being-able to examine and experience It's self\Self?

The fear of the unknown of that limit disperses with the realization that there is always a critical point where breakthroughs occur over the supposed temporal passage of time, and looking back through various levels of deconstruction -the very long passage of objective construction which appears but only an extremely short series of deconstructed processes increasing an imminent level of getting the sense if getting closer to the idea/sense of the Imminent Domain


This domain becomes very close as it's leveling off of iy'd own apprehension transcend or appears to change at an ever increasing rate of relating , and finally the state is reached where the classic question of the basic question : to be, or not to be becames axiomatic and enigmatically a double think , a question that appears as a confirmation of thought mirroring existential realities of the limits dissolving it'self in the sea if Being, which is a Thing reflecting the question we are trying to firm if the unconscious.

That Unconsciousness may be likened to a social conscious efgirtd to build a consensual understanding, a liberation from the inceptive recognition of it's feared source, a Cave. which
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9756
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby Meno_ » Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:22 pm

A Cave, in the Western tradition of the genesis of self counsciousness


The myth of Sysiphus illustrates the vast domain that preoccupies imagination with that view which tries to understand, without the emerging limitations which hinder the conscious birth of the concept of the self from the evolutionary cognitive sense of binding imaged to thought, by unbinding the substantial organization of pre-lingual understanding.

Buddhism it's self starts this binding -unbinding process that George Orwell realized in double think. as Buddhism sets the stage where the very totally deconstructed self can be understood as an absolute imminance, a pre conscious state that follows a double course all through both individual and culturally defined-determined way of understanding.

Th r culturally defined formative developing 'soul' becomes the way that leads one way to religiously transcended way of realizing reality, and science begins a different path.Aristoteles and Plato exemplify this, and the Platonic course exemplified the earliest recorded parting of the imminent of transcendental progression in Western classical times.
What relationship dies Buddhist notions with the Western modes if development?
One precedes the other to be sure , based on the Western model's temporal invention from Greco Roman and Egyptian sources, but with the necessary thought if some interralation between the East and the West which had some level of correspondence in a relative, non spatial/temporal way that happens in an esoteric realm of non conscious manner.

The early Egyptian language is composed of both of signs and signals of phonetic and abstracted relating mechanisms and do represent later focus on magic and it's association with the evolution of certain kinds of beliefs like for instance the coming to be of Magi, who came to witness the Birth of the Redeemer.

These by now images, coincide with the deconstruction of the objective world as theu reimmerse themself willingly into the sea of the subconscious.


Ironically, the more science tries to get nearer to the Source, the more disassociation occurs with the 'retro-projection' of images unto the concept of the esoteric self, and the modern sense of angst replaces the quiet serenity befire quantum dispersion of understanding happens.

That is why we push the thought if that dispersion to the usual receding horizon of Being, nit willing to dace a more General Mode of Relating, that has already come up the ranks ( of conscious-ness)with a specially related organization.

What happens, is that as Jesus tries to explain in parables, way ahead in time, realizing what amounts to energy bound spaces of the self ars always the mirror through which the corpus seed it's self in a mirror of partly his own devise, projects the fear if deconstruction that language's
disassociation always delimits, concurrently as a shadow sub-stance
The Corpus Christi is a projected quasi magical system as how the two can be unified.
That will for all time be the simplest, quickest way to be in a substantial reality that Orwell knows but because of the limitations that the IS-OUGHT sorld, must go along with the reduced, one dimensional, albeit digitalized under standing.
death.now.will release or approach the limit of feared states if perfection of absolute dispersion, that such states are being intuited but very advanced computers
But most will prefer Big Brother.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9756
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby iambiguous » Thu Oct 14, 2021 4:26 pm

Meno_ wrote:
When the ultimate deconstruction of specific expressions reach the levels that compete with no thought, as the doubly bound anthisesis reach rock bottom, the one can gain insight of LangE development as basically motor generally termed and less subtly and more or less relative to each other, regresding. as momotilazition of relating looses it's plasticity . as Peacegirl puts it, and this identifyable substance of these relations become more spaced out and uncertain


This in particular is a gem!

And though, in my view, it has absolutely nothing to note substantively about the limitations of language, it tells us something about the use of language for those who may or may not have a "condition".

Note to others:

Admittedly, I stopped reading here. So, it's possible that what follows and the stuff he noted on his next thread, actually are a coherent examination of how he connects the dots between the limitations of language and thinking double.

Given a particular context.

It's a judgment call. Do I waste even more of my precious time here reading further or do I ask for volunteers to take on that task for me.

Do what you can please.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43305
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby Meno_ » Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:08 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:
When the ultimate deconstruction of specific expressions reach the levels that compete with no thought, as the doubly bound anthisesis reach rock bottom, the one can gain insight of LangE development as basically motor generally termed and less subtly and more or less relative to each other, regresding. as momotilazition of relating looses it's plasticity . as Peacegirl puts it, and this identifyable substance of these relations become more spaced out and uncertain


This in particular is a gem!

And though, in my view, it has absolutely nothing to note substantively about the limitations of language, it tells us something about the use of language for those who may or may not have a "condition".

Note to others:

Admittedly, I stopped reading here. So, it's possible that what follows and the stuff he noted on his next thread, actually are a coherent examination of how he connects the dots between the limitations of language and thinking double.

Given a particular context.

It's a judgment call. Do I waste even more of my precious time here reading further or do I ask for volunteers to take on that task for me.

Do what you can please.



Exactly. That 'condition' is aptly called double talk, where communication fails, because it is dropped to contextual agreement.

Some call it the democratic dispensation of recognizing the difference between entangled situations and one where even next door neighbors fail to take minimum steps necessary to communicate


But philosophy nowedays is so broadly defined that most people fail to see any connection.

Or we may both be wrong
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9756
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby iambiguous » Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:38 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Exactly. That 'condition' is aptly called double talk, where communication fails, because it is dropped to contextual agreement.

Some call it the democratic dispensation of recognizing the difference between entangled situations and one where even next door neighbors fail to take minimum steps necessary to communicate


But philosophy nowedays is so broadly defined that most people fail to see any connection.

Or we may both be wrong


Note to others:

Was I wrong not to read this? 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43305
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby Meno_ » Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:56 pm

I am another and I say yes you were.

But it's ok even if other others think you were right.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9756
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: back to the beginning: the limitations of language

Postby iambiguous » Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:46 pm

The Tractatus
“The world is all that is the case”
José Zalabardo investigates which problem Wittgenstein is trying to solve.

The Platonist ontology is not without appeal. However, when we examine the Platonist ontology in detail we soon see that it’s plagued with difficulties. In fact there are problems concerning particulars, concerning universals, and concerning the combination of the two.

Let’s consider particulars first. If we are going to think of my table as separate from the universals that it instantiates – as what remains when all the universals are taken away (that would make it a bare particular) – then it will have to have no shape, colour, texture, chemical composition, weight, or any other universalisable property… It soon becomes hard to understand what kind of entity we are postulating, let alone in what sense it can still be described as my table.


It's still tables, but he wrote the article not me.

On the other hand, when the word "table" was invented in the English language, my guess is that this was done in order to encompass particular tables with an accumulation of particular combinations of properties. How much thought was given to tables "ontologically"?

Instead, where things get problematic is that, in the English language, the word "table" also came to be used to describe things that were not "pieces of furniture with flat tops and one or more legs". There's the Periodic Table. Or "a set of facts or figures systematically displayed". Or another word for postponing. Or you can "turn the tables" on someone.

Are there Platonist ontologies for them too?

Universals are also a source of perplexity. It’s hard to see how they could be located in space and time. Yet if they exist somewhere else, we would need to postulate a separate, non-physical realm for them to inhabit, and we need to provide an account of how we gain access to this realm. Plato didn’t have a problem with this – he thought our souls dwell in the Realm of Forms before we’re born – but others have been more wary about it.


Universals would seem to be located less in space and time "out there somewhere" and more "in your head". You think up the idea of an ontological table. Maybe you connect the dots between this table and God once you vacate the cave.

But the Platonic ontological table?

This table:

"Platonic realism is the philosophical position that universals or abstract objects exist objectively and outside of human minds." wiki

Something perhaps that only a philosopher could think -- think -- up?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43305
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mr Reasonable