It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1. The world is all that is the case.
4.003 Most of the propositions and questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical. Consequently we cannot give any answer to questions of this kind, but can only point out that they are nonsensical. Most of the propositions and questions of philosophers arise from our failure to understand the logic of our language. (They belong to the same class as the question whether the good is more or less identical than the beautiful.) And it is not surprising that the deepest problems are in fact not problems at all.
4.1212 What can be shown, cannot be said.
5.621 The world and life are one.
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science--i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy--and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions. Although it would not be satisfying to the other person--he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy--this method would be the only strictly correct one.
6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
1. The world is all that is the case.
4.003 Most of the propositions and questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical.
Most of the propositions and questions of philosophers arise from our failure to understand the logic of our language. (They belong to the same class as the question whether the good is more or less identical than the beautiful.) And it is not surprising that the deepest [philosophical] problems are in fact not problems at all.
4.1212 What can be shown, cannot be said.
5.621 The world and life are one.
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science--i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy--and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions. Although it would not be satisfying to the other person--he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy--this method would be the only strictly correct one.
6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.
What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
Originally posted by Astyanax
I'd like to see the underlying arguments before I go touting Wittgenstein as the Answer To It All.
4.1212 What can be shown, cannot be said.
I disagree. Modern physics and information theory suggest the opposite. As do I, who write for a living, and would regard it as truer to say that what can be said cannot be shown.
4.116 Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be put into words can be put clearly.
4.12 Propositions can represent the whole of reality, but they cannot represent what they must have in common with reality in order to be able to represent it--logical form. In order to be able to represent logical form, we should have to be able to station ourselves with propositions somewhere outside logic, that is to say outside the world.
6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.
What a load of pullulating, irrational bollocks.
Originally posted by Toughiv
People read into the words what they choose to. Like in the Bible it says "to love thy neighbour as you would yourself". People's understanding of what it is to "love" now cause discrepancies.
We learn what it is, to love for example through our experiences. Whether that be relations, reading etc. Therefore, if you come from a abused background, your idea of what it is to "love" is going to be different in some aspects.
you agree?
4.063 An analogy to illustrate the concept of truth: imagine a black spot on white paper: you can describe the shape of the spot by saying, for each point on the sheet, whether it is black or white. To the fact that a point is black there corresponds a positive fact, and to the fact that a point is white (not black), a negative fact. If I designate a point on the sheet (a truth-value according to Frege), then this corresponds to the supposition that is put forward for judgement, etc. etc. But in order to be able to say that a point is black or white, I must first know when a point is called black, and when white: in order to be able to say,'"p" is true (or false)', I must have determined in what circumstances I call 'p' true, and in so doing I determine the sense of the proposition. Now the point where the simile breaks down is this: we can indicate a point on the paper even if we do not know what black and white are, but if a proposition has no sense, nothing corresponds to it, since it does not designate a thing (a truth-value) which might have properties called 'false' or 'true'. The verb of a proposition is not 'is true' or 'is false', as Frege thought: rather, that which 'is true' must already contain the verb.
According to an end of the century poll, professional philosophers in Canada and the U.S. rank both his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (TLP) and Philosophical Investigations among the top five most important books in twentieth-century philosophy, the latter standing out as "...the one crossover masterpiece in twentieth-century philosophy, appealing across diverse specializations and philosophical orientations".
Source : Wikipedia
George Berkeley
[A] philosopher whose primary achievement was the advancement of a theory he called "immaterialism" (later referred to as "subjective idealism" by others). This theory contends that individuals can only directly know sensations and ideas of objects, not abstractions such as "matter." The theory also contends that ideas are dependent upon being perceived by minds for their very existence, a belief that became immortalized in the dictum, "Esse est percipi" ("To be is to be perceived").
Source : Wikipedia
How long will the sun and the moon exist ?
As long as there is someone to see them.
Originally posted by Pokémon
This post makes me think about the saying, "what does one hand clapping sound like"
Originally posted by Ian McLean
4.1212 What can be shown, cannot be said.
-Snip-
So, take heart, the next time you might feel depressed by a thread descending into "useless ideological bickering"!
4.003 Most of the propositions and questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical.
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
1. The world is all that is the case.
4.003 Most of the propositions and questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical. Consequently we cannot give any answer to questions of this kind, but can only point out that they are nonsensical. Most of the propositions and questions of philosophers arise from our failure to understand the logic of our language. (They belong to the same class as the question whether the good is more or less identical than the beautiful.) And it is not surprising that the deepest problems are in fact not problems at all.
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
Originally posted by MemoryShock
But I do think that the above quote is somewhat out dated and if i had more patience at the moment I would go through the entirety of your chosen quotes. Out dated in that if one considers that the inherent communicative values of body language and inflection (what can be shown) were less understood then they are today (an assumption but one I am comfortable making) then it could probably be said that "what can be shown" can be said as we are able to interpret these cues as they relate to what is actually being said (NLP proficients can do this in real time; I have to reflect...)
3.1 In a proposition a thought finds an expression that can be perceived by the senses.
3.11 We use the perceptible sign of a proposition (spoken or written, etc.) as a projection of a possible situation. The method of projection is to think of the sense of the proposition.
3.12 I call the sign with which we express a thought a propositional sign. And a proposition is a propositional sign in its projective relation to the world.
3.23 The requirement that simple signs be possible is the requirement that sense be determinate.
3.5 A propositional sign, applied and thought out, is a thought.
4. A thought is a proposition with a sense.
4.001 The totality of propositions is language.
Originally posted by MemoryShock
As it relates to online communication, the reasoning behind the word selection of an individual and the ares of expressed text where emphasis are placed are "what can be shown" and could probably be defined in the same vein as real time social cues after several/many interactions where a 'norm' has been 'quantified'.
4.022 Man possesses the ability to construct languages capable of expressing every sense, without having any idea how each word has meaning or what its meaning is--just as people speak without knowing how the individual sounds are produced. Everyday language is a part of the human organism and is no less complicated than it. It is not humanly possible to gather immediately from it what the logic of language is. Language disguises thought. So much so, that from the outward form of the clothing it is impossible to infer the form of the thought beneath it, because the outward form of the clothing is not designed to reveal the form of the body, but for entirely different purposes. The tacit conventions on which the understanding of everyday language depends are enormously complicated.
Originally posted by MemoryShock
Would "subjective" be a better word in the above quoted than "nonsensical"?