I think you are playing with the words here. — dimosthenis9

Just a little bit.

Just a little bit. — Banno

Glad you admit it.Just on time as to get out the idea, that was starting to shape in my mind, of you being stubborn.

Is the animal's world inside language? Is even the human world entirely within the bounds of language? If so, how does that work? — Janus

That's much the topic here: The content of beliefs is propositional"

For the purposes of exegesis, keep in mind Tractatus 1: The world is everything that is the case.

Comparing eggs and oranges is fraught.

Just on time as to get out the idea, that was starting to shape in my mind, of you being stubborn. — dimosthenis9

Why, thank you. Stubbornness is a virtue cultivated by having to explain things repeatedly.

Again, if you want to understand Wittgenstein, or any other philosopher of worth, you needsmust expend some effort.

You think he proposes to just let them pass? — dimosthenis9

No; I think he worked on those issues for much of his life.

Stubbornness is a virtue cultivated by having to explain things repeatedly. — Banno

As long as you explain them right.

Again, if you want to understand Wittgenstein, or any other philosopher of worth, you needsmust expend some effort. — Banno

Again your understanding isn't the only one. And not necessarily the right one. The one who disagrees with your understanding doesn't mean that hasn't studied Wittgenstein.

↪Cheshire Talk to yourself anyway you like, but not to me like that.
Noted. In fairness if I was claiming to possess important insight that defies summary I'd be laughed out of the room. It appears as if some one thought they could be vague enough they would overcome the unattended baggage sold with a lexicon, but instead of realizing this wasn't the case; it was concluded that things can't be communicated.

That's much the topic here: The content of beliefs is propositional"

For the purposes of exegesis, keep in mind Tractatus 1: The world is everything that is the case.

Comparing eggs and oranges is fraught. — Banno

That the content of beliefs may be propositional (in the restricted sense that they can in principle be propositionally expressed) does not seem to entail that the world those beliefs are about is propositional.

We can say "the world is everything that is the case" but the world itself is not encapsulated within that statement; it is rather our idea or ideas of the world that may be said to be encapsulated by it, or so it seems to me.

Not sure what you are getting at with the 'eggs and oranges' reference.

If we were going to do this properly we would need to go through the Tractatus step by step. I'm not up for that - it's been done a few times already.

That is, you may find the answers to your questions in the exposition for (1) and (2) in the Tractatus; or at least what the early Wittgenstein and others took for the answer.

I have to admit that, although the Tractatus has been on my shelves for nearly thirty years, I've never read it right through. I've started a couple times and found the effort required unrewarding. I found the PI more congenial, but I haven't studied that methodically either. I'm generally of the opinion that the great ideas should be able to be fairly adequately summarized by anyone with sufficient familiarity, understanding and eloquence, and that quite often their greatness does not consist in their being unequivocally correct but in the fact they were groundbreaking and facilitated further developments of ideas.

Philosophy does not lend itself to the dilettante.

Deleted

Noted. — Cheshire

Thank you.

In fairness if I was claiming to possess important insight that defies summary I'd be laughed out of the room. — Cheshire

Philosophy has to resort to defiance of convention sometimes. I would put Plato's images, Witt's examples in the PI, Nietszche whole bravado, Emerson's sacrilege, and Heidegger in general in this column. Sometimes philosophy is about changing your mind, not about knowledge, but, thinking in an entirely different way--that's hard to tell someone to do, or get there by just saying things that are right.

It appears as if some one thought they could be vague enough they would overcome the unattended baggage sold with a lexicon, but instead of realizing this wasn't the case; it was concluded that things can't be communicated. — Cheshire

I've said elsewhere in this discussion that if you look at it right you can see that he was starting with a hope that he could have a standard of logical structure that corresponded to the world, only to find out that a lot of the world doesn't fit into that kind of logic. This does not make us unable to talk about the rest, just that the discussion doesn't meet his standards. It is a very earnest example of trying to force things to be certain, predictable, predetermined, complete, abstract, etc.

Well this is fun.

Wow, you people are having so much fun, and you've made a lot of headway.

This does not make us unable to talk about the rest, just that the discussion doesn't meet his standards. — Antony Nickles

Precisely what I needed to understand. Thanks.

Sometimes philosophy is about changing your mind, not about knowledge, but, thinking in an entirely different way--that's hard to tell someone to do, or get there by just saying things that are right. — Antony Nickles

I think this is the source of dissonance at least in my experience. I'll gladly adopt a new frame of reference to kick around an idea. But, if I'm listening for the idea and just getting my bearings crossed...complaints aside. It makes sense now, appreciated.

I'm only interested in hearing and responding to your arguments, Banno.

ad hominem insinuations — Janus

The dilettante attitude to which I made reference is not found in Janus. I regret that he made that inference.

Rather they were for those who mistake an aphorism for a philosophy.

The direction Janus was heading is his question:

Is the animal's world inside language? Is even the human world entirely within the bounds of language? If so, how does that work? — Janus

is one on which I have written much, most of it in response to @creativesoul. I've not the time nor inclination to revitalise that deceased, maltreated equine. Hence my redirecting him to the debate.

Fair enough, Banno, apologies for my misunderstanding and overreaction.

:rofl:
Should have it sorted by Monday morning.

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world"

The meaning of "my world"

I would suggest that as Wittgenstein is using the term "my world" in a way that is not commonly accepted this contributes to any confusion in interpreting his intended meaning.

The original German was "meiner Welt, so it does not seem to be a problem of translating German to English.

In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein discusses what language can and cannot do.
He argues that there are some aspects of life, such as ethics, that are beyond the limits of language, in that they transcend language.
5.6 - "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" ?
6.421 - It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental. (Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same.)
7 - "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"

Wittgenstein links language to "my world" not by representing the world but by displaying its logical form.
4.001 - "The totality of propositions is language"
4.121 - "Propositions cannot represent logical form: it is mirrored in them. What finds its reflection in language, language cannot represent. What expresses itself in language, we cannot express by means of language. Propositions show the logical form of reality. They display it."
1.1 - "The world is the totality of facts, not of things"
1 - "The world is everything that is the case"

As with Mary in Mary's Room, Mary may know everything about the science of colour but may never have experienced the sensation of colour. Mary's world (in the sense of the world that Mary lives in) includes both those things within the limits of language - the science of colour - and that which transcends language - the experience of colour. The same is also true that for each of us, in that our worlds include both that which can be described and that which is beyond description.

However, Wittgenstein is limiting the term "my world" to only that part which can be described in language.

IE, when Wittgenstein writes "my world", he is using the term "my world" in a more restricted sense than is commonly accepted, contributing to any confusion in interpretations of his intended meaning.

Wittgenstein wrote a book called the Tractatus. — Banno

I asked for personal opinions and views, not suggestions what book should I read, @Banno. More specifically, at the end of the description of the topic I asked: "I would really like to hear your opinion on all this".
So, if you have read a book that explains this quote and my questioning, you could present your view.
BTW, please note that @Antony Nickles has already covered the topic very successfully. I could even consider it "closed".

An orator can touch the hearts of a hundred thousand people with one speech. — TheMadFool

... So can a silent magician! :smile:
... So could Charlie Chaplin in the era of silent movies! :smile:

I might very well be off the trail at this point. Thanks for the response. — Cheshire

That's OK, @Cheshire.

I have already praised your response to the topic, @Antony Nickles! Not olny personally, in my reply to your response, but also in public! (I prompted them to read your exemplary response to get inspired as I did!) :smile:

Great. Thanks.

Thank you for your response. You didn't have to assume that I have not read Wittgenstein's work, Tractatus, because it is very evident from my statement "I have recently been presented with Wittgenstein's statement-quote ..." ... which you quoted also yourself here! :smile:
In fact, I asked for people their opinion and views, not a suggestion on what book should I read.

No, I was certainly not confused about Wittgenstein's quote. If I was confused about something, this was with your overall response. Which is evident, since ended with questions ...
And I didn't get "brighter" with your new response.
It's not a big deal, though. Let's pass over it, shall we?

... So can a silent magician! :smile:
... So could Charlie Chaplin in the era of silent movies! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Touché! :up:

No, I was certainly not confused about Wittgenstein's quote. If I was confused about something, this was with your overall response. Which is evident, since ended with questions ...
And I didn't get "brighter" with your new response.
It's not a big deal, though. Let's pass over it, shall we? — Alkis Piskas

Well the OP sounded like the author was in deep confusion. Because you were talking about - the world is limited and the infants don't have their worlds because of the linguistic deprivation. And you were also wondering how you can use the computers even without knowing the linguistic abilities to describe the workings of it ... etc.  It sounded a bit dramatic.  I thought you were thinking as if the language is limited, so the world is limited, and the childrens cannot have their worlds etc.
I simply said, that the world is not affected at all, no matter how limited your languages are, even if you don't have language.
Well, I didn't reply to you to make you any brighter. I don't believe that anyone can make anyone anything. You make your own self whatever you want to be.   No one said it was a big deal. See, you making out something which is not, and making out which is not, to something. It is just communication, which has been initiated by you, if you think it over. I couldn't quite understand what you meant, when you asked if I agreed with you, and I was just clarifying the whole situation, in case you were misunderstanding something further.

I asked for people their opinion and views, not a suggestion on what book should I read — Alkis Piskas

Well yeah but the book suggestion answers to your initial question. Maybe that's why they try to urge you read it. You can't blame them for that. Just answering your question.

No, I was certainly not confused about Wittgenstein's quote. I — Alkis Piskas

Well if you were not confused what would be the reason to start the thread then at the first place? You did sound that you needed clarification for the Wittgenstein's statement. That's at least what I do when I'm confused.