transcending language?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » transcending language? » transcending language?

transcending language?
A messy heap of questions

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

transcending language?

ade90212
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2005
Location: Ex-Exeter
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 352

Posted 07/28/08 - 11:56 AM:	#11
Banno wrote: Perhaps, but I don't think the change from early to late was so great that he would reject the old claim. The statement about the limits of our world are not incompatible with the notion of form-of-life. Possibly not. But I think he might reject the original reasoning. As I read it, the claim as made in the Tractatus is based upon his atomism and his belief that there was a correspondence between language and reality which was written into the nature of language, an idea which he dismisses in his later philosophy. The 'Early' Wittgenstein may make the claim based upon the supposition that the nature of language is that it mirrors reality, and therefore language is limited by the extent of reality, as outside of reality there is nothing to mirror. THe 'Later' Witttgenstein may make the claim based upon the supposition that language demarcates the world, as everything that we can talk about is within the world and everything without language is not. Thinking about it I could have just summarised what I said as: "The limits of my language are the limits of my world' is perhaps best understood as saying that there is nothing about which we cannot talk. Think of it as an equivalence statement: if there is something in the world, then we can talk about it; and if we can talk about it. then it is a something in the world. But you can talk about anything, and anything can be talked about; so Wittgenstein is not here placing any restriction, either on the world or on language. Nor do I think he would agree that language derives from culture. Rather, language and culture form a way of life. each is indispensable to the other. If only I could find a reference...
"Philosophers often behave like little children who scribble some marks on a piece of paper at random and then ask the grown-up "What's that?" - It happened like this: the grown-up had drawn pictures for the child several times and said: "this is a man", "this is a house", etc. And then the child makes some marks too and asks: what's this then?" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 07/28/08 - 03:33 PM:	#12
ade90212 wrote: If only I could find a reference... Wittgenstein discusses his changed view of logic around remarks 90 - 100 of PI. He is grappling with the same issues as Tractatus 5.6. See 5.621: The world and life are one.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

shenyue
(post)modern dervish

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 12

Posted 08/22/08 - 01:47 AM:	#13
CypressMoon wrote: Is it possible to transcend our culture(, in the wittgenstinian sense? Or in the heideggerian sense,).... For me the question is yes. There is a small problem however I believe relatively aware human beings are capable of experiences/perceptions that transcend our culture, our mediated reality/consciousness. Yet once one attempts to articulate them w/ words from any one of the languages we've learned, we become grounded right back into the mundane. To those who seem certain that we cannot transcend our framework by definition, remember that there are no self evident dictums, including that one....
Take some workable combination of Lao Zi, Gibran, Plato, and Benjamin, and one might actually grasp toward a unified theory.

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 08/22/08 - 01:11 PM:	#14
shenyue wrote: For me the question is yes. There is a small problem however I believe relatively aware human beings are capable of experiences/perceptions that transcend our culture, our mediated reality/consciousness. Yet once one attempts to articulate them w/ words from any one of the languages we've learned, we become grounded right back into the mundane. To those who seem certain that we cannot transcend our framework by definition, remember that there are no self evident dictums, including that one.... Nice Phoenix. Anything that can be meant can be shown. The claim to have inarticulable experiences is senseless. In other words, the framework grows to encompass the mystical.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 08/22/08 - 01:23 PM:	#15
Grumpy old bastard speaking: Kids these days. When a burger is "awesome", what do they say when they come across something that is genuinely awe-inspiring? I suppose they stand, a dulled mute.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

shenyue
(post)modern dervish

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 12

Posted 08/22/08 - 08:00 PM:	#16
Banno wrote: shenyue wrote: For me the question is yes. There is a small problem however I believe relatively aware human beings are capable of experiences/perceptions that transcend our culture, our mediated reality/consciousness. Yet once one attempts to articulate them w/ words from any one of the languages we've learned, we become grounded right back into the mundane. To those who seem certain that we cannot transcend our framework by definition, remember that there are no self evident dictums, including that one.... Nice Phoenix. Anything that can be meant can be shown. The claim to have inarticulable experiences is senseless. In other words, the framework grows to encompass the mystical. Where is the poet in you Banno? Not sure what you mean precisely by the framework encompassing the experience, but I have imho experienced the inexpressible several times in my life. I am indeed coming from a partially mystical perspective ala Walter Benjamin's theory of language. And I don't believe I mean something like being touched by the mercy of Jesus Christ. I won't argue whether its senseless or not; I've been that road before with too many friends and colleagues. I wouldn't mind discussing your last comment further.... Cheers
Take some workable combination of Lao Zi, Gibran, Plato, and Benjamin, and one might actually grasp toward a unified theory.

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 08/22/08 - 10:23 PM:	#17
shenyue wrote: ...I have imho experienced the inexpressible several times in my life... Have you? Tell me about them! For we Do talk about such things, don't we? Do you think you could lead me to experience the inexpressible, too? Then haven't you shown me what you are (not) talking about? There is a thread here abouts called "I love you more than words can say", in which a similar notion is argued. If you tell me you love me more than words can say, haven't you told me how much you love me, in words?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

shenyue
(post)modern dervish

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 12

Posted 08/23/08 - 03:04 PM:	#18
Banno wrote: shenyue wrote: ...I have imho experienced the inexpressible several times in my life... Have you? Tell me about them! For we Do talk about such things, don't we? Do you think you could lead me to experience the inexpressible, too? Then haven't you shown me what you are (not) talking about? There is a thread here abouts called "I love you more than words can say", in which a similar notion is argued. If you tell me you love me more than words can say, haven't you told me how much you love me, in words? You're right of course. Leading another to experience the inexpressible is tricky business but it is indeed possible to express the inexpressible. I did not consider something simpler like love more than words can say but I mean something similar. I am of the persuasion that one can position our relation with words and language not to be so literal. The blessing/curse of formal logic makes me defensive in forums like these. I see nothing wrong with saying that this chair I am sitting in is both existing and (not) existing at the same time. What is often dismissed as circular arguments and tautologies in strictly logical sense does not mean one cannot garner further insights. Language can be finessed, massaged, and should be indirect and meandering in order to point at truths with the capital T. BTW, I am still unsure about your framework comment from previous post. One is always in a 'framework' of a sort -even if one grants that past frameworks can be transcended. Are we speaking of some total framework of consciousness, the framework of language, or something else.
Take some workable combination of Lao Zi, Gibran, Plato, and Benjamin, and one might actually grasp toward a unified theory.

Banno
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 3460

Posted 08/23/08 - 05:32 PM:	#19
shenyue wrote: I am still unsure about your framework comment from previous post. I took the term as it was used by you in #13. I hope I'm using it in much the same way you were. Popper describes building in a swamp. The builders create a foundation, and then they can go up and build the first floor. If the building starts to look unstable, they can go back to extending the foundation, until stability is achieved, and then return to building up. They might build a new west wing, or start a separate building nearby. The foundation is not a limit on what can be built, because it is itself built. Same goes for language. We build from within the framework, but we can build in any direction, and add any features we discover that we need. Language only places limits on our thought or behaviour if we are lazy.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing...

unenlightened
ri t nd r tist

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1718

Posted 08/24/08 - 10:04 AM:	#20
Banno wrote: We build from within the framework, but we can build in any direction, and add any features we discover that we need. Language only places limits on our thought or behaviour if we are lazy. There is a limitation that we can only build a model; we cannot actually live in the building. It should be obvious, but one sometimes forgets.
The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.