Air crash - and update

[Sydney Grew]

. . . So no, I don't think it means: 'If we don't know anything for sure, we should shut up'.

You are right; it "means" something much simpler and more straightforward. He was saying, "in the beginning was the Word", or, "that which cannot be expressed in words, cannot be spoken about." Language is all, in our little minds. Language is everything that can exist; our minds require language if they are to operate at all. Which, like most of jolly old Wittgle's Delphical pronouncements, is both blindingly obvious and gets us no further forward.

[MrGongGong]

You are right; it "means" something much simpler and more straightforward. He was saying, "in the beginning was the Word", or, "that which cannot be expressed in words, cannot be spoken about." Language is all, in our little minds. Language is everything that can exist; our minds require language if they are to operate at all. Which, like most of jolly old Wittgle's Delphical pronouncements, is both blindingly obvious and gets us no further forward.

Now my philosophy is a little rusty
BUT I don't think one needs language to think and it isn't always required by the mind.

[gurnemanz]

Now my philosophy is a little rusty
BUT I don't think one need language to think and it isn't always required by the mind.

I'm inclined to agree there. On a daily basis I speak both German (to my wife) and English (to everyone else). Is it not the case that any thought I might have (still happens occasionally) must take shape at some deep conceptual level and then find its surface expression as an utterance in either lanaguage, depending who I am addressing?

[ahinton]

FF wrote
"I don't think it means: 'If we don't know anything for sure, we should shut up'".
to which SG responded

You are right; it "means" something much simpler and more straightforward. He was saying, "in the beginning was the Word", or, "that which cannot be expressed in words, cannot be spoken about." Language is all, in our little minds. Language is everything that can exist; our minds require language if they are to operate at all. Which, like most of jolly old Wittgle's Delphical pronouncements, is both blindingly obvious and gets us no further forward.

It is this observation that "gets us no further forward, I fear! The point here is not about the powers or the shortcomings of verbal language at all, but the far simpler matter of asserting the wisdom of taking due care as to how one might utter comments that, in the absence of sufficient evidence, can for the time being be no more than speculative or partially speculative; in other words, comment by all means but, in so doing, ensure that due caveats are included in order to clarify that they are seen/heard to be made on the basis of what is known at the time. I therefore find it hard to perceive that there might be any realistic place for Wittgensteinian musings here...

[Dave2002]

I'm inclined to agree there. On a daily basis I speak both German (to my wife) and English (to everyone else). Is it not the case that any thought I might have (still happens occasionally) must take shape at some deep conceptual level and then find its surface expression as an utterance in either lanaguage, depending who I am addressing?

I think Chomsky and others have tried to address this kind of issue. Also neuroscientists have found out quite a lot more.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Now my philosophy is a little rusty
BUT I don't think one need language to think and it isn't always required by the mind.

I once asked a Swedish lady long married to a Brit whether she thought in English or Swedish. She rather startled me by saying she didn't think in words!

Still trying to work that one out...

[MrGongGong]

I once asked a Swedish lady long married to a Brit whether she thought in English or Swedish. She rather startled me by saying she didn't think in words!

Still trying to work that one out...

Seems perfectly logical to me
I don't either and I have asked others who say the same thing

[teamsaint]

Seems perfectly logical to me
I don't either and I have asked others who say the same thing

mathematicians , I should think.

[Flosshilde]

Now my philosophy is a little rusty
BUT I don't think one needs language to think and it isn't always required by the mind.

My knowledge of philosophy is also a little rusty (if it ever existed), but I would agree that one doesn't neccessarily need language to think, but one does need a language to express what one is thinking, and a language that can be understood by the people you are communicating your thoughts to. The Swedish lady might not think in words (or a language), but she will have to decide which language - Swedish or English - she is going to use to communicate her thoughts (& she might decide not to use a verbal language, but a visual one - painting, drawing, sculpture, acting, or sign language if she is communicating with deaf people).

[Sydney Grew]

. . . some deep conceptual level and then find its surface expression as an utterance in either lanaguage, depending who I am addressing?

Those "concepts" are already a language, of sorts. One juggles them around using logic, and relates or connects them one to the other. Same idea. The grammar does differ from that of German or English. But a language to be a language does not need to be ex-pressed.

[doversoul1]

I once asked a Swedish lady long married to a Brit whether she thought in English or Swedish. She rather startled me by saying she didn't think in words!

Still trying to work that one out...

I bet she said that because she was bored with people asking the same question; that’s her default answer. If you’d asked her ‘Do you dream in Swedish or English’, she’d probably have said, ‘I don’t dream’.

‘I don’t think in words’ is a very wordy thought.

Does this section deserve a thread of its own?

[Anastasius]

.....
Does this section deserve a thread of its own?

I've been thinking the same thoughts for the last couple of pages!!

[LeMartinPecheur]

I bet she said that because she was bored with people asking the same question; that’s her default answer. If you’d asked her ‘Do you dream in Swedish or English’, she’d probably have said, ‘I don’t dream’.

Actually, she looked quite surprised by my question, and by her own answer. I do know her quite well - we both help run a chamber music society!

[Dave2002]

Those "concepts" are already a language, of sorts. One juggles them around using logic, and relates or connects them one to the other. Same idea. The grammar does differ from that of German or English. But a language to be a language does not need to be ex-pressed.

Go a bit further, and we'll start discussing consciousness - and presumably also unconscious thoughts.

[doversoul1]

Actually, she looked quite surprised by my question, and by her own answer. I do know her quite well - we both help run a chamber music society!

I apologise if I sound dismissive (it was not meant to be) but in general, it is the question that English speaking foreigners can’t get away from. Maybe your friend’s English is perfect and people don’t realise that she is not a native English speaker.