Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent

>>9044575
idk but it sounds smart

>>9044575

This quote is stupid. If you can't talk about it you're going to be silent about it anyway.

He meant we can't speak with any surety of things which are beyond sense experience and therefore unknowable. But didn't Hegel say: "the This of sense...cannot be reached by language."?

File: GustaveKlimtIdylle.jpg (265KB, 2048x1305px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 2048x1305px

>>9044575

there is a lot to be said re: such a complex and idiosyncratic thinker, but i would respond by saying something like: the limits of our language are simultaneously the limits of our way-of-life, of our "passionate frame of reference," of the way experience is bound up with the way we look at the world. hence, too, why we would never understand the lion, even if the lion could talk: we do not share enough of experience to share a language; the underlying signs, the "reflexes" that exist pre-linguistically, are missing as common knowledge--therefore, even there silence would reign.

so to that extent, i think the end of the tractatus is beginning to show cracks in wittgenstein's own early philosophy, clearing the room for him to pivot into his mature position and fully articulate this principle in his latter philosophy. at rock bottom, wittgenstein clears away the traditional, "correspondence theory" of language--where words correspond to actual objects, participating int he lineage of a platonic theory of eidos and truth--with this claim, opening the space for his ordinary language philosophy--where "words are deeds" rather than things--to emerge, embedded in, as wittgenstein himself described, a "new soil." or: we shift to seeing language as reflecting an objective world to seeing language as drawn from and building unique lifeworlds that are above/beyond/without the traditional category of "truth"

This was written at the end of tractatus, retards.

>>9044575
Know your role and shut your mouth.