was he right, /hum/?

>>2930211

Dunno about this thing but I'll comment on something else.

In Philosophical Investigations P.I, 352, 516, he wants to cook up an example of some unknown which either IS or IS NOT true. For his example, he selects at random: "Does the string 7777 occur at any point in the decimal expansion of π?" The point is not to answer this concrete question, but to think about its logical possibilities.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bw-duXxYihdvWVlFaUhzclY5Vmc/view

Nevertheless, one is still enticed to "miss the point" of the question by actually answering it. And it turns out that the string 7777 does occur in π, and rather early at that (in its first instance), starting at decimal digit 1589:

http://www.angio.net/pi/

Are you referring to his early beliefs, or later beliefs? The whole language meme thing he later recanted on.

>>2930638
you're already reading the investigations, but you don't have an opinion on his central idea? kids these days, man...

>>2930779
>The whole language meme thing he later recanted on.
then why is PI completely about language? you have no clue what you're talking about

>>2930857
PI is entirely about language, but its views on language differ greatly with earlier stuff like the tractatus. If I seemed to imply he gave up on studying language at all, then that was a misunderstanding.

>>2930211

No. 99.99999% of our thoughts are non-linguistic, we think in images and abstractions and have to translate those into words to communicate with others.

>>2930950
>but its views on language differ greatly with earlier stuff like the tractatus
I dare you to explain what those two views were and how they differed.

Especially the part in the OP image. Are you saying that he "recanted" that?

Since you know so much about Wittgenstein I'm sure you could help me, stupid faggot.

>>2931005
His early works stated that language had definite meanings that could be discovered through logic.

His later works discredited his early ones, saying that the meanings of words change, and can not be perfectly understood without knowledge of the broader cultural baggage they contain.

That quote comes from the tractatus, and its meaning is that all human emotion, expression and experience can be captured through language, and that the boundaries of a given language thus impact the boundaries of such experiences.

>>2931129
totally fucking wrong, retard.

>>2931185
I do only have a cursory knowledge of Wittgenstein, but unless you explain WHY I am wrong, I can't believe you have any better of an understanding. If you do have a better understanding, actually using it to help everyone else understand this complex subject is surely better than just calling people names. So, unironically, tell me what I got wrong.

>>2930850

It's a rather annoying read in its way, drifting from one thing to the next: "but how do u really KNOW what u mean, maaan." The approach seems to typify the modern caricature of a philosopher, that normies/plebs use to dismiss the discipline.

So far I prefer the Tractatus.

>>2931249
it's straight up not philosophy unless you take philosophy to be what he says it is, which by the way no one does.

>>2931216
you have to read him first, faggot. I'm not giving you a crash course. this thread was a failure.

The limits of the conceptual world: yes, but the world itself: no.

Direct, immediate perception and experience of reality itself is always possible at every moment. It is not dependent on any idea, language, concept, mental construct, etc.

t. Buddhism

File: Gustav-Mahler86[1].jpg (584KB, 1271x1553px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 1271x1553px

>>2930211
>mfw someone implies that shit

Ich weiß für mich, daß ich, solang ich mein Erlebnis in Worten zusammenfassen kann, gewiß keine Musik hierüber machen würde.

>>2931475

Only insofar as you have participated in it, and not because of anything that the OP (and presumably the later posts that you were abusive towards) wrote.

t. not the OP.

File: Kant.jpg (21KB, 250x360px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 250x360px

>>2931544
>Direct, immediate perception and experience of reality itself is always possible at every moment.

That's cute.

If you have a thought and can't express it, is it just an inarticulable sensation? is what he's getting at here. If a tree falls down in the woods...etc

It comes down to the definition of "thought"

>>2931475
Naw mane
dis wat Luddie slick witty awl bout

>>2932114
shut

>>2932210
this

>>2932208
>If you have a thought and can't express it
then you didn't have a thought

>If a tree falls down in the woods...etc
"Does the string 7777 occur at any point in the decimal expansion of π?" (>>2930638)

>>2934587
Animals dont have thoughts?

>>2934714
how could you ever know if they did?

>>2930211
In a sense, but only because everything is languege, this is how we percieve reality through movement and communication of information between the self that observes and actualizes reality and the object it observes.

>>2931129
This is the correct answer. OP's quote comes from the Tractatus, not from the PI, and indeed that quote basically means he thought language could be reduced to propositional logic, and the word could be reduced to experiences that could be expressed by propositions... Thus both world and lenguage have the same limits.

>>2935770
HAHAHAHAH

so, let me get this straight. what you're telling me is that, having, of course, read the tractatus, you think the tractatus says:
>all human emotion, expression and experience can be captured through language, and that the boundaries of a given language thus impact the boundaries of such experiences

next

>>2935826
No you faggot. But about things without correlate to the world, or which can't be expressed through propositions, we can't say anything true or false.

You could state your own view on this instead of autistically shouting "you wrong".

>>2935910
faggot

>>2930211
The movie Arrival explores this concept of language defining how we see the world.
You should check it out.

>>2930850
op quote is from the tractatus not pi

File: nagarjuna.jpg (624KB, 1517x2336px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 1517x2336px

>>2932123

>muh artifical noumenon/phenomenon distinction
>can't even into non-duality
>can't even ding an sich through meditation and mindfulness

>>2936354
>can't even ding an sich through meditation and mindfulness

It ain't no "ding an sich" is there is a "through" involved, m8

>>2931544
our direct, immediate perception is limited by how our mind makes sense of what we perceive, which is in turn limited by language.

>>2936470

What

>>2936930

Usually this is that case. But it is also possible to stop filtering perception through ideas. This is partly what's meant by "enlightenment".