Wittgenstein - The Unsayable & Limits of Thought

In this clip, Ray Monk, Barry Smith, and Marie McGinn discuss the early Wittgenstein's thought in regards to the famous last proposition of the Tractatus: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." This clip comes from an episode of the podcast In Our Time a few years back. For more information and the full episode, go to: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p005...
More Short Clips: • Shorter Clips & Videos...
#philosophy #wittgenstein #epistemology

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

What exactly is the danger ? Will we fall off a cliff ? Will something explode ? Will some people be injured or killed by someone expressing an 'unsayable proposition'?
We often say things without being clear on the particulars or on the general application of what we are saying (see Plato's dialogues), yet this doesn't mean that what we are saying is complete non-sense. Rather, it means that we have not completely thought-through our own meanings. The real 'danger' here is that we might either become either absolutely dogmatic or completely skeptical in our beliefs, and, therefore, in either case, refuse to examine further what exactly it is that we believe or we mean. This is the 'danger' that Socrates tried to counter when engaging in philosophical discussion with his contemporaries. The whole point of philosophy is to keep thinking alive by avoiding the excesses of either an absolute dogmatism or a complete skepticism. At least, this is how Socrates conceived of philosophy, and this is why he said, that an unexamined life is not worth living !

[@alexalvareztaylor3798]

Which is what dialectics tries to deal with, obviously with debatable levels of success

[@sebastiangalvan5189]

hi! wao, i was looking for this video, it was longer right?

[@tonysandy7803]

The founder of The UK Samaritans, discovered its purpose through a woman who kept visiting him. Every time she went through the same problem until eventually she fully understood what she wanted to say, thanked him and walked away. As he said afterwards, he never uttered a word, just allowed her to get her thoughts in order. What cannot be said? Raw experience as there are no words to describe it to the experiencer, even though afterwards he may find terms to describe what he went through or others, having gone through the experience themselves earlier than him, might give him terms to describe it. It's like drug addict said. We are always trying to recapture the ineffable quality of the first time we experience something and that is what hooks us onto it for ever or as Schopenhauer remarked, until we get bored with it and abandon it.

[@Mithennesss]

Hmm interesting. Ill check it out. At first, I was inclined to dismiss ludwig and bertrand due to ignorance, but seeing the logic aspect of it and its closeness to math opened me up. Thanks.

[@whitb6111]

Bertrand was a mathematician before becoming interested in mathematics and Wittgenstein an aerospace engineer

[@dubbelkastrull]

6:20 bookmark

[@misterprogressive8730]

What is the basis of this interpretation? In the beggining of the tractatus wittgenstein wrote:
"dieses buch wird vielleicht nur der versteheb, der die gedanken, die darin ausgedrückt sind oder doch ähnliche gedanken schon selbst einmal gedacht hat. Es ist also kein lehrbuch. Sein zweck wäre erreicht, wenn es einem, der es mit verständnis liest, vergnügen bereitete."
And the end:
"6.53 die richtige methode der philosophie wäre eigentlich die: nichts zu sagen, als was sich sagen läßt...
7 wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen."
He never mentioned anything about the differentiation between "showing" or "saying", since his concern was more on the articulation of ideas through language and how it can stand through the test of laws of logic. The tractatus worked on the ideal language and showed how it can be presented unconventinally without violating the laws of logic and still can be understood by the readers (in realtion to the first paragraph of his introduction / vorwort). See, for example, point 5.101

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

4.022 Der Satz _zeigt_ seinen Sinn. Der Satz _zeigt_ wie es sich verhält, wenn er wahr ist. Und er _sagt_ dass es sich so verhält.
4.022 The proposition _shows_ its sense. The proposition _shows_ how things stand, if it is true. And it _says_ that they do so stand.
4.1212 Was _gezeigt_ werden kann, kann nicht _gesagt_ werden.
4.1212 What can be _shown_ cannot be _said_
4.121 Der Satz kann die logische Form nicht darstellen, sie spiegelt sich in ihm. Was sich in der Sprache spiegelt, kann sie nicht darstellen. Was sich in der Sprache ausdrückt, können wir nicht durch sie ausdrücken. Der Satz _zeigt_ die logische Form der Wirklichkeit. Er weist sie auf.
4.121 Propositions cannot represent the logical form: this mirrors itself in the propositions. That which mirrors itself in language, language cannot represent. That which expresses itself in language, we cannot express by language. The propositions _show_ the logical form of reality. They exhibit it.
6.522 Es gibt allerdings Unaussprechliches. Dies _zeigt_ sich, es ist das Mystische.
6.522 There is indeed the inexpressible. This _shows_ itself; it is the mystical.
Now, you may very well have a rather different interpretation of these passages, but I just wanted to make it clear that he _does_ in fact bring up and discuss "saying" versus "showing".

[@misterprogressive8730]

@@Philosophy_Overdose this is not a very good interpretation because you are assuming that there is a dichotomy between "zeigen" and "sagen", while these two words are use in a relation to "darstellen" (representation).
You can see this indicated in:
4 der gedanke ist der sinnvolle satz
4.001 die gesamtheit der sätze ist die sprache
4.002 ..... die sprache verkleidet den gedanken.....
4.12 der satz kann die gesamte wirklichkeit darstellen, aber er kann nicht das darstellen, was er mit der wirklichkeit gemein haben muß, um sie darstellen können - die logische form.
There isnt any indication of any dichotomy, at least in phenomenological sense, since wittgenstein was more concerned with language and communication rather than metaphysics.
5.6 die grenzen meiner sprache bedeuten die grenzen meiner welt.
7 wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.
You cannot say about something that you dont know, not because it does not exist, but because you dont know. And thus you cannot show it as well.

[@freiabereinsam-]

@@misterprogressive8730
I‘m quite astounded, that Wittg. did not distinguish between a „Satz“ and an „Aussage“ (utterance) in the first place.
Since the Aussage is describing the Satz, gives it a warrant to be said.