Indeed.

Thank you for your comment!
All that is quite plausible. Indeed, we should not take the statement literally but give it some interpretation margins. Yet, it sounds quite concrete. That's why, I should maybe limit my questions to a single one, that of the "baby" example, which is by itself refutes totally the statement in question.
I have an idea that Wittgensteinhimself himself must have re-examined it at some point later in his life and was not very happy with it.
And this concerns another topic I though of creating: One should not always cling to quotes-statements of prominent persons because they may have been stated under specific conditions or even refuted at a later time.

Thanks you for your response. This is certainly quite an interesting. But maybe from a point of view that is not so real for most of us (in the West).

Just what is or what does it mean to be at the limits of one's language? — Shawn

I guess it means the richness of one's vocabulary. Also, the degree to which I can express, describe or explain somethimg in words.

1) Does it mean that a baby, for whom language does not even exist at all, has no world, i.e. nothing exists for him/her? No pleasure in sucking milk? No sense of the warmth of his/her mother hug? No intimate connection with her? No recognition of objects? And so on ... — Alkis Piskas

I think that is irrelevant to Wittgenstein’s point. He was not making that point to be inhumane to infants. He is reflecting on the nature of knowledge.

I don't think that Wittgenstein meant that there is no world outside of language. I see it more as an attempt to show that human "reality" is limited (even by senses). And language is also following that limited reality that people can understand and also express through it. — dimosthenis9

:100:

It is a good question what 'the limits of language' are and would it be if someone's mental state deteriorated so much as, for example, in dementia. Or, we could be talking about a heightened state of consciousness, where a person in unable to describe the ineffable, as in mystical states. — Jack Cummins

Right. In either case the person has certainly a "world" (reality). It doesn't matter if he cannot share it with others. It's maybe why Wittgenstein suggests that "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." ... (Yet, this does not validate his statement under discussion.)

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." — Alkis Piskas

:zip:

Would a professional writer have done better - vocabulary, style, etc. - if you'd asked faer to write your post for you? — TheMadFool

I used a simple and comprehensible language and I think my desciption of the topic is very clear. A professional writer, even just someone whose mother tongue is English, could have improved the wording, but this has nothing to do with the present case.

Thank you for your response. Your thoughts make sense to me.

I can't otherwise explain that such a great mind as Wittgenstein would make such a "shallow" statement(mistake) as you say. — dimosthenis9

I thought that too. That's why I believe that he most probably has refuted this statement himself at some point later in his life.
But, anyway, saying that a prominent person said this and that so it can't be wrong, etc., is not philosophising. It cannot replace personal judgement. Philosophy involves personal judgement, reasoning and critical thinking. This is why I created this topic: to see what people have to say about it.

The statement cannot be understood without understanding how he draws the limits of "my world". — Fooloso4

This is true. I fact, we also have to understood what exactly he meant by "limits of my language".
You have brought up a lot of thoughts (which I guess are attributed to Wittgenstein?) And they do offer for study. Maybe then one would place the statement in question in the right perspective. Bit we don't know this and then it would mean that the words themselves used in this statement are unable to express its truth. Even if there existed a much shorter and more direct explanation of the statement than what you have brought up, Wittgenstein himself would have said "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"!

@Banno, maybe you misundertood my intention on creating this topic. I din't critisize Wittgenstein. In fact I said I was surprised in reading it. Therefore, I didn't expect a criticism. I wanted to hear views about the statement. Indeed, I ended my description with "I would really like to hear your opinion on all this". So you could just offer yours ...

That wasn't a criticism.

Wittgenstein wrote a book called the Tractatus.

You read one of the section headings and colluded that it was shallow.

I encourage you to go back to the book and read the chapter heading in context. Especially the first heading, in which Wittgenstein sets out how he is using the word "world".

Over to you.

Thank you for your response. I have not read only a little about the context but I admit I have not read Wittgenstein's whole work in which this statement is made. I just tried to apply this statement in real life. And it doesn't work for me. And that was the purpose of my topic: to find out, from people who know better, what does this mean to them. And, according to some other view, my examples cannot stand. Now, if this is not easy, it means that the words themselves in this statement cannot show its truth because thay are not enough, and in such a case, wouldn't Wittgenstein himself say, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"?

(BTW, Now, since you seem to know about the context and Wittgenstein in general, maybe you also know if it is true that he negated this statement himself at later in his life? (I have read about it somewhere but I cannot trace it back ... @Shawn also talks about it in here.)

Well, first, we cannot take one line out of context and imagine that we can understand it without projecting our own concerns. — Antony Nickles

Thank you very much for your response. This is indeed true and a few have already brought it up. And since I don't know the context, I asked if someone could explain the statement and present a view that would invalidate my examples, which show that at least as it is, this statement cannot stand in real life. However, all those who (correctly mentioned the need of "context") have not such a context ready but only suggest to study the whole or part of Wittgenstein's work where this statement appears. This is not how it works, though. If the words themselves in a statement or even a short and direct explanation of it cannot show its truth then, wouldn't Wittgenstein himself say, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"?

'm guessing when you say "much more than words", you would agree that Wittgenstein is not saying that there are ONLY words, but just that the limits are what can be EXPRESSED in language ("logic" here) I think we can also agree that the sense of the word "world" that you are using includes your claim that even what cannot be expressed in words is part of the "world" (more "exists"); some people call this non-verbal, or pre-linguistic, or even objective.. — Antony Nickles

I agree. Good point!

1) Does it mean that a baby, for whom language does not even exist at all, has no world, i.e. nothing exists for him/her? No pleasure in sucking milk? No sense of the warmth of his/her mother hug? No intimate connection with her? No recognition of objects? And so on ...
— Alkis Piskas
Yes, that is what Witt is working from; the world does not exist for them as yet. Witt is not discussing feelings or experiences, but facts "1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things." This is to also to close off "thoughts" as an internal state of affairs. He is requiring a criteria of logic--everything else is off the table, e.g. ethics, aesthetics, poetry, etc. — Antony Nickles

Oh, this becomes really good!

2) If I see an object for the first time and I don't know how it is called, does this mean that I have no reality at all about that object, i.e., the object doesn't exist for me?
— Alkis Piskas

Sort of, yes--you would be able to express something about it, yes? This is not a claim about objects or making a claim to a fact about everything ("the world" as you are taking it)--that the object does not "exist" in the sense that it is nothing. So, yes, the inner workings of a computer or car also do not exist for that person. This is not to say that the world is dependent on the subject, but that he is pushing a different idea of the "world" and its "existence". Now, why? and do we disagree with that cause? are deeper questions than to fight with a philosopher from your own terms and understanding (beliefs/opinions). — Antony Nickles

All this is fine too!

@Antony Nickles, thanks again. I was really glad to read such a response! In fact, I was looking something like this when I created the topic. :up:

BTW, what's your relation with Socrates? :wink:

But, anyway, saying that a prominent person said this and that so it can't be wrong, etc., is not philosophising. It cannot replace personal judgement — Alkis Piskas

True. We don't have to take anything that has been said for granted and to accept it, just because someone said it. Even if that someone is a great philosopher and mind.
But it doesn't seem to be that case here.

Those who speak do not know. Those who know do not speak
— Lao Tzu

Mighty interesting, once you compare the above to,

The limits of my language means the limits of my world
— Ludwig Wittgenstein

Lao Tzu seems to be saying that there are things you can know but can't put into words.

Wittgenstein seems to be saying that what you can't put into words, you can't know. Socratic!

1. If you know then you can word it (False as per Lao Tzu, True as per Wittgenstein).

Contradiction!

Both Lao Tzu and Ludwig Wittgenstein seem to be doing a dance around, this is important, ineffables. The former claims that the ineffable is knowable while the latter claims that the ineffable is unknowable. — TheMadFool

I think you’re missing Wittgenstein’s point - you’re assuming that my world, all I know, is all that exists in the interaction. It’s missing something: the I that knows, the relation of knowing. This is the aspect of existence that one embodies in order to know, and is therefore missing from what one knows.

And Lao Tzu is not talking about things we know here, but the relation of knowing.

For me, there’s no contradiction.

You have brought up a lot of thoughts (which I guess are attributed to Wittgenstein?) — Alkis Piskas

Almost everything in my was direct quotes from the Tractatus including his numbers. The numbers should not be ignored.

Thus when the Tractatus tells us that 'Logic is transcendental', it does not mean that the propositions of logic state transcendental truths; it means that they, like all other propositions, shew something that pervades everything sayable and is itself unsayable. — Anscombe, G. E. M. An Introduction to Wittgenstein's Tractatus. 1971. G. E. M. Anscombe, pg. 166

I take it that Wittenstein is using the term 'transcendental' in the Kantian sense, that is, the condition for the possibility of both language and world.

This can be seen as coming from Wittgenstein's view of language as saying what can be said about my world and showing what cannot be said about my world. — Shawn

According to the Tractatus, I am not part of the world, I am not in the world, in the same way as the eye sees the world but is not what is seen.

1) Does it mean that a baby, for whom language does not even exist at all, has no world, i.e. nothing exists for him/her? No pleasure in sucking milk? No sense of the warmth of his/her mother hug? No intimate connection with her? No recognition of objects? And so on ...
— Alkis Piskas

Yes, that is what Witt is working from; the world does not exist for them as yet. — Antony Nickles

What can be said does not limit what can be seen. Language represents or pictures the world, it cannot do so if it is not seen. It does not begin to be seen only when one begins to say things.

Thanks you for your response. This is certainly quite an interesting. But maybe from a point of view that is not so real for most of us (in the West). — Alkis Piskas

Less familiar? Sure. Less real? No. I just wanted to point out that the idea of language limiting our worlds is not uncommon.

Thank you @Corvus for your repsonse.

It just means that outside of the proper linguistic world, there are many metaphysical objects such as afterlife, God, free will, infinities ... etc, in which clear and meaningful linguistic communication is not possible due to the limitation of language. — Corvus

Right. Physical or metaphysical and non-physical things that have a meaning for us, we can recognize them as such, etc. are part of our world, even if we have a difficulty in communicating them to other persons, due to the limitation of our language.

you still must know how to use the computer i.e. power it on, and login and start your apps or internet browsers to work it. — Corvus

These things refer to everyday are actions, a lot of them even done mechanically. In some of them you don'et even have to know the actual words of the things with which you perform these actions. E.g. You may have absolutely no idea what a browser is; you can just call it by the general name "program". Most people don't know what Internet actually is. For them it is kind of "world" or "space" somewhere out there, in which you can search and find things, read documents, watch moviews, hear songs, and all that beautiful stuff. IT language plays a minimal role in performing all these actions. From the moment you are "connected" to a virtual world that you can recognize as your real world, you only need to know the language of that world, as you do in real life.

These are skills that have nothing / very little to do with linguistic capabilities unless you are writing instruction booklets for them. — Corvus

Right. So, should I then conclude that you generally agree with my position? Or have I missed something that supports Wittgenstein's position, namely, that language does indeed limit our world?

There's no benefit in imagining unexplainable things; of which this is oddly an example or not. — Cheshire

I don't think I mentioned anything about imagining things ... Such things would not be part of my world. Part of my wolrd are only things that I can experience, that are real to me..

Thank you for your response.

He is reflecting on the nature of knowledge. — Wayfarer

This may be true. It is what @Antony Nickles called "facts".

But it doesn't seem to be that case here. — dimosthenis9

Yes, indeed.

Almost everything in my was direct quotes from the Tractatus including his numbers. The numbers should not be ignored. — Fooloso4

I see. OK, thanks!

What can be said does not limit what can be seen. Language represents or pictures the world, it cannot do so if it is not seen. It does not begin to be seen only when one begins to say things. — Fooloso4

Right. I agree.

I used a simple and comprehensible language and I think my desciption of the topic is very clear. A professional writer, even just someone whose mother tongue is English, could have improved the wording, but this has nothing to do with the present case. — Alkis Piskas

The expressive power of language few can tap into. Rhetoric? An orator can touch the hearts of a hundred thousand people with one speech. Not an orator and you'll not be able to convince even one.

Less familiar? Sure. Less real? No. I just wanted to point out that the idea of language limiting our worlds is not uncommon. — T Clark

When I said not real I meant Tao Te Ching.
But then, aren't both statements 1) "the unnamed world is identified as 'non-being'" and 2) "the world does not exist until it is named" implied by Wittgenstein's statement?

Thank you all for your responses!

I am happy that this topic helped to clarify the meaning of this statement-quote by Wittgenstein. More specifically, I suggest that you read @Antony Nickles's response, which I deem not only very inspiring, but also an exemplary demonstration of how to handle such a kind of topic.

Yes, that is what Witt is working from; the world does not exist for [ babies ] as yet.
— Antony Nickles

What can be said does not limit what can be seen. Language represents or pictures the world, it cannot do so if it is not seen. It does not begin to be seen only when one begins to say things. — Fooloso4

I would grant that you are right that what can be expressed does not limit what can be seen; that is not the point. Witt is not "explaining"--he is not doing science here; these are not statements of fact--not statements. So, being "seen" does not make the world "exist" in the way that Wittgenstein is talking about here--you are assuming what is meaningful in saying something "exists", or is "seen" (think of them as terms you do not understand right away). As an example, you may not exist to the extent you have not expressed anything to differentiate yourself--categorically (in the logic of living) you are "not alive" (living your life), to yourself or to us. To be expressed in the relevant logical way, limits what meets the criteria of existing: in the sense of being meaningful to us, worth our notice; "seen", not in an empirical way, but in a way that reflects our interests and cares. This desire/compulsion for this criteria is investigated in his later work. As is the theory that language "represents or pictures" or references the world. Again, this is not a matter of competing opinions for someone to be right about.