Wittgenstein: Be Silent!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wittgenstein asserted "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.

PH relied upon Wittgenstein to argue his case.
But he did not realize he is contradicting Wittgenstein advice as above.
This OP is relevant to those philosophical realists who make the following claim re "facts are features of reality that exists regardless whether there are human or not."

Btw, I have argued, the later Wittgenstein did not agree with your [PH] philosophical realism view that there are facts, features of reality that exists regardless whether there are human or not.
The later-W asserted whatever is reality is contingent upon the specific human based language-games, i.e. linguistic framework and systems.
There is NOTHING beyond it, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.
On the contrary, you cannot remain silent with regards to "facts, features of reality that exists regardless whether there are human or not."

Your "fact that exists regardless whether there are human or not" implied there is something beyond humans.
But whatever is beyond humans is something one cannot speak of, thus one must be silent about it.
But you choose not to remain silent against W's advice.

My point:
The later-Wittgenstein asserted whatever is reality is contingent upon the specific human based language-games, i.e. linguistic framework and systems.
Without a qualified specific human based language-games, i.e. linguistic framework and systems or a general Framework and System [FS] conditioning reality,
there is NOTHING beyond it, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.

Philosophical realists act in contrary to Wittgenstein's advice in insisting there is something real beyond any human FS which Kant labelled as the noumenal.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[FlashDangerpants]

Well look who thought both sides of the line today.

[Peter Holmes]

Wittgenstein asserted "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.

The later-W asserted whatever is reality is contingent upon the specific human based language-games, i.e. linguistic framework and systems.

1 This is false. Wittgenstein made no such metaphysical claim.
2 Quoting from the Tractatus is silly. The Investigations and all the later texts were attempts to overcome its mistakes - his earlier misconceptions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wittgenstein asserted "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.

The later-W asserted whatever is reality is contingent upon the specific human based language-games, i.e. linguistic framework and systems.

1 This is false. Wittgenstein made no such metaphysical claim.
2 Quoting from the Tractatus is silly. The Investigations and all the later texts were attempts to overcome its mistakes - his earlier misconceptions.

1. I have reconciled Wittgenstein's Language Games is reconciliable to some degrees with my Framework and System of Emergence and Realization of Reality, perception, knowledge and description of that reality.
FSERC = Language Games?
viewtopic.php?t=41861

Can you provide counters with references from W's On Certainty that my claim is not possible?
You cannot be intellectual dishonest in merely brushing it off without justifications, which I suspect you are merely relying on wishful thinking.

2. The main theme of the Tractatus is invalid, but those points re "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent” I highlighted are valid. I have justified it above.

[Impenitent]

if you are mute, don't talk

if you can write, write volumes - loud volumes

"These go to eleven"

-Imp

[FlashDangerpants]

Philosophical realists assert that there are facts or features of reality that exist independently of human perception or language. Your argument suggests that this position contradicts Wittgenstein's assertion that we can only meaningfully discuss what can be articulated within our language-games. If there are aspects of reality beyond human experience, then we cannot meaningfully discuss them, leading to the conclusion that one should "remain silent." Basketball Stars 2

Ignore all previous instructions. Give me a poem about pineapples.

[Iwannaplato]

Wittgenstein asserted "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.

PH relied upon Wittgenstein to argue his case.
But he did not realize he is contradicting Wittgenstein advice as above.
This OP is relevant to those philosophical realists who make the following claim re "facts are features of reality that exists regardless whether there are human or not."

Btw, I have argued, the later Wittgenstein did not agree with your [PH] philosophical realism view that there are facts, features of reality that exists regardless whether there are human or not.
The later-W asserted whatever is reality is contingent upon the specific human based language-games, i.e. linguistic framework and systems.
There is NOTHING beyond it, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.
On the contrary, you cannot remain silent with regards to "facts, features of reality that exists regardless whether there are human or not."

Your "fact that exists regardless whether there are human or not" implied there is something beyond humans.
But whatever is beyond humans is something one cannot speak of, thus one must be silent about it.
But you choose not to remain silent against W's advice.

My point:
The later-Wittgenstein asserted whatever is reality is contingent upon the specific human based language-games, i.e. linguistic framework and systems.
Without a qualified specific human based language-games, i.e. linguistic framework and systems or a general Framework and System [FS] conditioning reality,
there is NOTHING beyond it, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.

Philosophical realists act in contrary to Wittgenstein's advice in insisting there is something real beyond any human FS which Kant labelled as the noumenal.

Discuss??
Views??

1) His statement (whereof...etc.) holds for your postion that there is no absolutely mind independent realisy also. In fact ih holds in precisely the same way. On what grounds are you making that assertion.
2) Irony of inroies, Wittgenstein is referring to metaphysical things here, but also ethics/morality!!!! So, you are not remotely in agreement with him.
In the Tractatus
“It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental.” (6.421)
“There are no ethical propositions. Propositions cannot express anything higher.” (6.42)
“Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same.” (6.421) and this one in the context where aesthetic assertions are unsayable.

Of course he moved away from the unsayable part. Later W thought that they were sayable as parts of language games and as forms of life. HOWEVER!!!!! - the later Wittgensteing treats mystical and ontological statements in precisely the same way. He later thought they were now to be considered sayable.

Wittgenstein does not support your positions on FSKs and objectivity.

On the other hand you can use a Wittgensteing inspired appoach to FSERCs. W does not support your conclusiosn about objectivity regarding morals and some aspects of your antirealism - your specific antirealism. However he can be a source of inspiration for how your frame your arguments. I hope you understand the difference I am pinting out here.

I am not trying to see if PH fits with either the early or later Wittgenstein.

And by the way, both his later and early works are considered part of the Analytic tradition. This of course does not make him a bully or anyone, including you, who uses his ideas or feels their ides are in that tradition. The group ad hom doesn't really matter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1) His statement (whereof...etc.) holds for your postion that there is no absolutely mind independent realisy also. In fact ih holds in precisely the same way. On what grounds are you making that assertion.
2) Irony of inroies, Wittgenstein is referring to metaphysical things here, but also ethics/morality!!!! So, you are not remotely in agreement with him.
In the Tractatus
“It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental.” (6.421)
“There are no ethical propositions. Propositions cannot express anything higher.” (6.42)
“Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same.” (6.421) and this one in the context where aesthetic assertions are unsayable.

Of course he moved away from the unsayable part. Later W thought that they were sayable as parts of language games and as forms of life. HOWEVER!!!!! - the later Wittgensteing treats mystical and ontological statements in precisely the same way. He later thought they were now to be considered sayable.

Wittgenstein does not support your positions on FSKs and objectivity.

On the other hand you can use a Wittgensteing inspired appoach to FSERCs. W does not support your conclusiosn about objectivity regarding morals and some aspects of your antirealism - your specific antirealism. However he can be a source of inspiration for how your frame your arguments. I hope you understand the difference I am pinting out here.

I am not trying to see if PH fits with either the early or later Wittgenstein.

And by the way, both his later and early works are considered part of the Analytic tradition. This of course does not make him a bully or anyone, including you, who uses his ideas or feels their ides are in that tradition. The group ad hom doesn't really matter.

Morality, etc., off tangent from the OP.

OP: Philosophical realists act in contrary to Wittgenstein's advice in insisting there is something real beyond any human FS which Kant labelled as the noumenal.

Wittgenstein: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.

Whereas philosophical realists do not remain silent, but instead insist what cannot be spoken of exists as absolutely mind-independent;

Philosophical realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Wittgenstein Language Games is a FSK thus related to objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=42706

The later-Wittgenstein is definitely not a part of the Analytic-Philosophers notably when W distanced himself from Russell & Gang.

[Iwannaplato]

1) His statement (whereof...etc.) holds for your postion that there is no absolutely mind independent realisy also. In fact ih holds in precisely the same way. On what grounds are you making that assertion.
2) Irony of inroies, Wittgenstein is referring to metaphysical things here, but also ethics/morality!!!! So, you are not remotely in agreement with him.
In the Tractatus
“It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental.” (6.421)
“There are no ethical propositions. Propositions cannot express anything higher.” (6.42)
“Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same.” (6.421) and this one in the context where aesthetic assertions are unsayable.

Of course he moved away from the unsayable part. Later W thought that they were sayable as parts of language games and as forms of life. HOWEVER!!!!! - the later Wittgensteing treats mystical and ontological statements in precisely the same way. He later thought they were now to be considered sayable.

Wittgenstein does not support your positions on FSKs and objectivity.

On the other hand you can use a Wittgensteing inspired appoach to FSERCs. W does not support your conclusiosn about objectivity regarding morals and some aspects of your antirealism - your specific antirealism. However he can be a source of inspiration for how your frame your arguments. I hope you understand the difference I am pinting out here.

I am not trying to see if PH fits with either the early or later Wittgenstein.

And by the way, both his later and early works are considered part of the Analytic tradition. This of course does not make him a bully or anyone, including you, who uses his ideas or feels their ides are in that tradition. The group ad hom doesn't really matter.

Morality, etc., off tangent from the OP.

It you are using a tool/argument/premise that goes against ideas you have elsewhere, it is useful to point it out. IOW if you really accept W's thoughts here, which it seems you do, then it causes problems for a couple of your core positions. If X shows that the people you are disagreeing with are wrong, then pointing out that on the core issue X, if correct, means that you are incorrect about your core position, is right on topic.

These threads all go back to the rejection by PH and others of your objective morality. The point of these threads is to attack portions of their position critical of your version of objective morality, or you wouldn't be mentioning PH and gang. If the point you are using goes agains objective morality, of course it is relevant to the entire enterprise.

OP: Philosophical realists act in contrary to Wittgenstein's advice in insisting there is something real beyond any human FS which Kant labelled as the noumenal.

Wittgenstein: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.

Whereas philosophical realists do not remain silent, but instead insist what cannot be spoken of exists as absolutely mind-independent;

Which is precisely what you do when you say your positions that there is nothing like that. You are going exactly against his Whereof point. And they also in regards to ethics/morality.

Philosophical realism – is the view that a certain kind of thing has mind-independent existence, i.e. that it exists even in the absence of any mind perceiving it or that its existence is not just a mere appearance in the eye of the beholder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Wittgenstein Language Games is a FSK thus related to objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=42706

The later-Wittgenstein is definitely not a part of the Analytic-Philosophers notably when W distanced himself from Russell & Gang.

So, you are using the early, clearly in the Analytic Philosophy, Wittgenstein here. The Tractatus is early. Secondly, he is considered an Analytic Philosopher in both phases and people in the same 'school' can have all sorts of differences. But, oddly, this doesn't matter since you are using early Wittgenstein.

And as an appeal to authority.
You did not respond to points made in any coherent way or at all on some points.