jgweed's Signature

Forums: Philosophy, Shut Up, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Wittgenstein
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I was thinking today about jgweed's signature line and I though of a little experiment I would like to do.

Please explain, in a few sentances, if you can, what his signature means. Please don't go look it up first... I'm looking for first impressions. If possible, I would like to have some of our "non-philosophy" comrades answer first.

I'll tell you why I think the interpretation of his signature is important after a few people answer.

Here it is:

"Whereof on cannot speak, thereof one should be silent"

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 10 • Views: 6,322 • Replies: 98

@de Silentio,

de Silentio wrote:

I was thinking today about jgweed's signature line and I though of a little experiment I would like to do.

Please explain, in a few sentances, if you can, what his signature means. Please don't go look it up first... I'm looking for first impressions. If possible, I would like to have some of our "non-philosophy" comrades answer first.

I'll tell you why I think the interpretation of his signature is important after a few people answer.

Here it is:

"Whereof on cannot speak, thereof one should be silent"

It is the celebrated last sentence in Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. It is quite well-known what it meant in the context of that work. It is certainly no mystery. What jgweed might have had in mind is anyone's guess. But most philosophers interested in Wittgenstein know what Wittgenstein meant, and why he wrote it. It had to do with his picture theory of meaning, to begin with, and also to do with his view about the nature of philosophical discourse. Wittgenstein completely changed his mind about these topics subsequently in his later, Philosophical Investigations

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

I'm looking more for what the words mean to the individual who reads them. Give me YOUR interpretation of what they mean.

1 Reply

@de Silentio,

Quote:

"Whereof on cannot speak, thereof one should be silent"

Just wondering if there is a typo there. Should it be:

Whereof onE cannot speak, thereof one should be silent

1 Reply

@de Silentio,

It might have a very specific meaning, but as a whole it's nonsens and stupidifying.

It's excatly opposit, what one does not know, must be illuminated, not being silenced and thrown to oblivion, that's bad philosophy.

0 Replies

@Butrflynet,

You are correct Butrflynet... Sorry for the mistake.

2 Replies

If you don't know what you're talking about, shut up!

0 Replies

@de Silentio,

No problem, just trying to make sure we're all assuming the same correction if a correction was needed.

0 Replies

1 vote for margo

0 Replies

@de Silentio,

In esoteric philosophy, Wittgenstein's words resonate with the ineffable experience of "a higher level of consciousness" . i.e. Such a level is "beyond words" because it is a priori to the segmentation of reality by words. Similarly it is beyond the separation of "self" from "not self" hence there is no "self" which needs to "communicate", nor "time" over which such communication can occur.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

In esoteric philosophy, Wittgenstein's words resonate with the ineffable experience of "a higher level of consciousness" . i.e. Such a level is "beyond words" because it is a priori to the segmentation of reality by words. Similarly it is beyond the separation of "self" from "not self" hence there is no "self" which needs to "communicate", nor "time" over which such communication can occur.

And exactly that is the kind of thing that Wittgenstein meant when he said that if all you can think of spouting is nonsense, please refrain from spouting it.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Quote:

And exactly that is the kind of thing that Wittgenstein meant when he said that if all you can think of spouting is nonsense, please refrain from spouting it.

I suggest you read what the OP is looking for, and perhaps also contemplate the significance of W's later shift to his adage "meaning is use". Derrida's analysis of the status of "text" is also worth some consideration .

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
And exactly that is the kind of thing that Wittgenstein meant when he said that if all you can think of spouting is nonsense, please refrain from spouting it.

I suggest you read what the OP is looking for, and perhaps also contemplate the significance of W's later shift to his adage "meaning is use". Derrida's analysis of the status of "text" is also worth some consideration .

Whatever you happen to mean, that does not show that your former post is not just the kind of thing that Wittgenstein is saying we should not say because we should not try to say nonsense. A good example of speaking nonsense is the bulk of Derrida's writing. Whatever Wittgenstein meant by his notion that that the meaning of a word lies in how it is used, he was not, thereby, saying that by the mere fact of giving voice to nonsense, you convert nonsense to sense. Nonsense is still nonsense, even when you speak it. Speaking nonsense makes it worse, not better.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

You either don't understand, or don't want to understand, what the OP is looking for. End of conversation.

0 Replies

@de Silentio,

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent"

I understand this to mean ..if there is a context in which we cannot make sense, then we should not talk about it at all.
For example, If we do not admit 'spiritual' entities then to discuss the existence of God or some other spiritual entity, is to talk nonsense...therefore we must remain silent.

TLP "7. What we cannot speak about we must passover in silence."

1 Reply

@de Silentio,

"Whereof on cannot speak, thereof one should be silent"

You all are wrong. It means, if you are a mute then you shouldn't try to speak. Duh because you are a mute. It's very helpful advice.

0 Replies

@Owen phil,

Owen phil wrote:

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent"

I understand this to mean ..if there is a context in which we cannot make sense, then we should not talk about it at all.
For example, If we do not admit 'spiritual' entities then to discuss the existence of God or some other spiritual entity, is to talk nonsense...therefore we must remain silent.

TLP "7. What we cannot speak about we must passover in silence."

And, as Frank P. Ramsey said, "that doesn't mean that we can whistle it, either".

0 Replies

@de Silentio,

Quote:

I'm looking more for what the words mean to the individual who reads them. Give me YOUR interpretation of what they mean.

Perhaps you would like to elucidate at this point, or are you waiting for a particular response?

1 Reply

@de Silentio,

It sounds more like the Inquisition. Taboo is forbidden so utter no sound.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
I'm looking more for what the words mean to the individual who reads them. Give me YOUR interpretation of what they mean.

Perhaps you would like to elucidate at this point, or are you waiting for a particular response?

Well, right now I mean by them that I like fried eggs sunny side up. Will that do as a response? If not, then why not?

1 Reply

jgweed's Signature

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know