well, /hum/, was he right?

Does it imply you can't have ideas without them being formulated into language? I think that is false.
It is essential for transmission though. If he meant that his world is communicating with others, then that statement would be true.

I'd say the limits of his material body are the limits of his world.

>>2942736
>Does it imply you can't have ideas without them being formulated into language?
No. What you're saying is essentially a metaphysical statement. He would never say any such thing.

>If he meant that his world is communicating with others
Language is communicating with others. That's totally obvious and wouldn't be the basis for a reputation.

He wants to change the way we talk about the relationship between language and the world. What was the relationship before?

>>2942764
>Language is communicating with others
This isn't true. You never think to yourself using words?
Which other are you communicating to then?

>>2942784
This is a different issue which he also talk about. It's called the private language argument. What you're suggesting isn't private. If it was, you wouldn't be able to make sense of it.

But I don't think it's controversial to just assume language is public. First of all, where do you get it from?

But I don't want to talk about this and won't reply to this line, because it's not of interest to me.

>>2942792
Well, I want to talk about this. I'll try to keep it interesting.
>If it was, you wouldn't be able to make sense of it.
It is entirely possible for me to create a language that only I understand. Languages have been created whole cloth by many people. If I was the only one who spoke it, would it not be private and I still be able to make sense of it?

> First of all, where do you get it from?
You may learn the skill of language through imitation and through formal teaching, but after you acquire that skill it is yours to do what you will with it.

Language, fundamentally, is a tool people use to represent the information contained in an idea using a sound. It is an encoding technique. Nothing prevents you from having your own unique encoding, you would just be unable to transmit it to another person.

wrong. it is possible to construct all sorts of sentences but the limits of the world in which he lives, i.e. his world, i.e. the universe remain the same.

Q.E.D.

>>2942825
sure but how many of those would be nonsense? that's the distinction he's getting at. the world is all that is the case.

>>2942821
Everything you said was wrong.

>>2942784

You CAN think to yourself in words, sort of, but the normal way of thinking is in images, emotional states, and abstractions.

>>2944403

That's still not effective for formulating particularly advanced thoughts, though. You can't really visualize philosophy the same way you can visualize a tiger.

>>2944384
Please, enlighten me wise one.

The way that sentence is constructed seems like the Sapir-Whorf hypotesis, which would be ridiculous because there's a lot of things that exist that have not yet been articulated in language.