Are there are things out there in the world that you can't talk about?

[Hume]

Someone comes up with a view about the relationship between language and the world, such that there are things out there in the world that you can't talk about. They come up with a view to the effect that there are limits to language. There are many such views.

The problem that such a view faces is that, if you say there are such things, and even worse if you argue that there are such things – as all these philosophers do – then you must talk about them. So the view itself says that these things go beyond language. And yet, the very fact of arguing for it shows that they don't. That's the problem.

Wittgenstein and the paradoxes at the limits of language | Graham Priest, Oliver Adelson

iai.tv

 

[Cypress]

Someone comes up with a view about the relationship between language and the world, such that there are things out there in the world that you can't talk about. They come up with a view to the effect that there are limits to language. There are many such views.

The problem that such a view faces is that, if you say there are such things, and even worse if you argue that there are such things – as all these philosophers do – then you must talk about them. So the view itself says that these things go beyond language. And yet, the very fact of arguing for it shows that they don't. That's the problem.

Wittgenstein and the paradoxes at the limits of language | Graham Priest, Oliver Adelson

iai.tv

I have heard physicists say that one can't really explain string theory or quantum chromodynamics with words; the best words can do is create very rough and inadequate analogies.

I doubt words are even adequate to describe Beethoven's 5th symphony.

 

[Hume]

I doubt words are even adequate to describe Beethoven's 5th symphony.

I can think of a word, "boring."

 

[Cypress]

I can think of a word, "boring."

Not everyone would agree, proving my point that verbal language is inadequate to describe music or theoretical physics.

 

[Hume]

Not everyone would agree, proving my point that verbal language is inadequate to describe music or theoretical physics.

I do not agree. And physics uses symbols of math, which is a language.

 

[Daylight63]

Weird. I actually agree with @Hume on this one. Mathematics is a language. I don't know what @Cypress would call any attempt to discuss theoretical physics without some form of language. Hume's right on this front. The language of the discussion is mathematics.

 

[Cypress]

I do not agree. And physics uses symbols of math, which is a language

Weird. I actually agree with @Hume on this one. Mathematics is a language. I don't know what @Cypress would call any attempt to discuss theoretical physics without some form of language. Hume's right on this front. The language of the discussion is mathematics.

I literally and intentionally wrote verbal language -->

Not everyone would agree, proving my point that verbal language is inadequate to describe music or theoretical physics.

And the original post presented in post#1 is clearly talking about verbal language, since it repeatedly refers to 'talking'. -->

Someone comes up with a view about the relationship between language and the world, such that there are things out there in the world that you can't talk about.

 

[Daylight63]

I literally wrote verbal language -->


And the original post is clearly talking about verbal language, since it repeatedly refers to 'talking'. -->

What a weird sub-category to focus on. Here I thought this was going to be an interesting discussion.

 

[Cypress]

Foiled again! I am desperate to catch Cypress in a fuck up and prove how smart I am!

ftfy

The original post clearly and unambiguously was referring to spoken verbal language.

Nobody told me the rules and parameters of the original post were being changed on the fly to include mathematics.

You were obviously desperate to catch cypress in a fuck up

 

[Hume]

I literally and intentionally wrote verbal language -->


And the original post presented in post#1 is clearly talking about verbal language, since it repeatedly refers to 'talking'. -->

So, there is no universality to ordinary language.

 

[Daylight63]

ftfy

The original post clearly and unambiguously was referring to spoken verbal language.

Nobody told me the rules and parameters of the original post were being changed on the fly to include mathematics.

You were obviously desperate to catch cypress in a fuck up

One thing I note about your "attempts" at philosophical discussion. You tend to prefer either something that is so vague and open-ended that it cannot be discussed (that's where you usually reside) but at other times you make such a sui generis point on some niggling sub-sub-sub-grouping of a larger class and then get pissed off when someone tries to "generalize" your point.

I wasn't catching a "fuck up" I was just agreeing with @Hume. Mathematics IS a language. And arguably it is even a verbal language in some aspects. There really is no differentiation that is MEANINGFUL other than making grunting noises with your trachea. It's called a DISCUSSION.

I know you don't like to "discuss" things because everyone isn't always just telling you you are brilliant and right.

Why don't you get over yourself and TRY to have a conversation?