Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8445034" data-attributes="member: 7023840">You know, snarky isn't your best look, is it?I'd probably go back and read what I wrote again. I know that you often misapprehend what I say because I tend to sprinkle in jokes, but I'll let you in on a quick annotated version. Here is what I wrote in response to a question about the quote-The title is a paraphrase from Wittgenstein (it's originally in German, so you'll see various versions). Not our old friend, Ludwig van. Ludwig Josef Johann.It's kind of a distillation of the idea that you can only know what you have words for- that understanding and language cannot be viewed as severable concepts, but inseparable. If something is, then it must be thought of, and for it to be thought of, it must be within the range of things that we can speak - language determines what we can think about. Or, "What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence." Well, it's more complicated, which is why he probably wrote a lot of stuff in German (and he would tend to disagree with himself over time). But that's okay for a quick summary. Now, let's examine this.1. The title is a paraphrase from Wittgenstein (it's originally in German, so you'll see various versions). Okay, I know who the dude is.2. Not our old friend, Ludwig van. Ludwig Josef Johann. That's called a joke (or at least an allusion to Kubrick's Clockwork Orange).3. It's kind of a distillation of the idea that you can only know what you have words for- that understanding and language cannot be viewed as severable concepts, but inseparable. That is a paraphrase of one of the important concepts behind the representational theory of language.4. If something is, then it must be thought of, and for it to be thought of, it must be within the range of things that we can speak - language determines what we can think about. Pretty boilerplate representational theory of language.5. Or, "What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence." That's the pull quote (some) people know from Tractatus.6. Well, it's more complicated, which is why he probably wrote a lot of stuff in German ... This is the whole, yeah, Wittgenstein isn't really likely to lead to a productive conversation on this thread, and I don't normally bother explaining myself due to responses like yours, but someone asked a genuine and earnest question.7. (and he would tend to disagree with himself over time). That's the reference to Wittgenstein's shift from Tractatus to Philosophical Investigations. 8. But that's okay for a quick summary. And that's what it was. A quick summary explaining the quote.I didn't follow up on the various responses by Umbran, et al., because I don't normally do so- I'm not really interested, for purposes of this discussion, in the evolution of language, or Chomsky, or current scientific theories regarding same. But you tell me, since you are the expert on this and what I was thinking when I used the quote in the title- why would I possibly be referencing a philosopher who famously adapted positions from what many would think of as a postivist approach to a something more akin to pragmatism when I wrote the OP? I mean, yeah, it's probably just me being all stupid and stuff, like usual. Right?</blockquote>

Verification