the limitations of language

[Age]

'If any one, really, wants to find out the actual Truth of things, then just ask clarifying questions',

How do you ask clarifying questions of dead philosophers, the biggies, to find out the actual Truth of things?

Why would you even begin to think that only the so-called "dead philosophers" would have had the actual Truth of things?

Answer: You don't. You study what they said or reportedly said until you understand.

Until you understand 'what', exactly?

Go forth and do likewise with life, or else you're always to be intellectually dependent upon the limitations of language.

So, you 'now' are saying and claiming that to understand the actual Truths, in Life, you need to study 'the words', and thus 'the language', of 'dead human beings', right?

How come 'dead human beings' did not have a 'limitation of language', but you do?

[Walker]

So, you 'now' are saying and claiming that to understand the actual Truths, in Life, you need to study 'the words', and thus 'the language', of 'dead human beings', right?

At this time in the history of the world, it’s been said that in certain places such an assertion could be grounds for a misunderstanding citation, or perhaps that’s just the next step from a misinformation citation, and yet to occur. That’s a joke, but such an actual place could come to be where there is a glut of attorneys to wear down the system, however even such attorneys ask questions with intent.

The answer to your question is: The example of finding truth via philosophy is just a situation-relevant example, as is potentially every moment. After all, this is a philosophy forum.

If you ask the yourself that identifies with the same myself (i.e. Self), “What are the other examples,” you will find that remembering how a world can be found in a grain of sand, and eternity in an hour, suggests that there are multitudinous examples, one might say a multiverse of examples.

[Age]

So, you 'now' are saying and claiming that to understand the actual Truths, in Life, you need to study 'the words', and thus 'the language', of 'dead human beings', right?

At this time in the history of the world, it’s been said that in certain places such an assertion could be grounds for a misunderstanding citation, or perhaps that’s just the next step from a misinformation citation, and yet to occur. That’s a joke, but such an actual place could come to be where there is a glut of attorneys to wear down the system, however even such attorneys ask questions with intent.

The answer to your question is: The example of finding truth via philosophy is just a situation-relevant example, as is potentially every moment. After all, this is a philosophy forum.

If you ask the yourself that identifies with the same myself (i.e. Self), “What are the other examples,” you will find that remembering how a world can be found in a grain of sand, and eternity in an hour, suggests that there are multitudinous examples, one might say a multiverse of examples.

In other words, it is in 'dead philosopher's language' where the answers, and the truth, lies, right?

[iambiguous]

Pictures and Nonsense
Mark Jago looks at Wittgenstein’s first theory of language, in the Tractatus. One of the conclusions of this theory is that the theory in the Tractatus is nonsense…

The Purpose of Philosophy
Included in Wittgenstein’s list of nonsense, as well as the logic of language, is any talk about ethics, aesthetics, religion and mathematics. In fact, all philosophical reflection is meaningless.

Mathematics?

As for the others, my own frame of mind here revolves around the assumption that in a No God world meaning is existential. In other words, given our day to day social, political and economic interactions meaning is everywhere. Much of it we share objectively. On the other hand, pertaining to ethics, aesthetics and religion "failures to communicate" are as well often everywhere.

To many, this conclusion is incredible. Many philosophers devote their efforts to discussing ethical arguments, for example; why would they do this if all they say is meaningless?

Exactly. While an argument might be made that all reflection is philosophically meaningless, once you bring that..."down to Earth"?

Look around the globe. Meaning up the wazoo, right?

On one way of reading the Tractatus, Wittgenstein’s main message is the meaningless of philosophy in general. So the picture ‘theory’ I discussed above should not be called a theory at all, for a theory can be stated meaningfully. However, even though philosophical sentences are meaningless, philosophy as an activity can show us certain things – things, that is, that cannot be said meaningfully.

Again, however, says who? And given what particular set of circumstances? Me? I tend to make what I construe to be a crucial distinction between what things mean to us "in our heads" and what we are then able to demonstrate that, in fact, all reasonable men and women are obligated to share that meaning.

[iambiguous]

Pictures and Nonsense
Mark Jago looks at Wittgenstein’s first theory of language, in the Tractatus. One of the conclusions of this theory is that the theory in the Tractatus is nonsense…

This distinction between saying and showing is vital to the Tractatus.

And it is particularly vital given my own distinction between saying what you believe is true "in your head" and being able to demonstrate that it is in fact true for others as well. Then the further distinction between this in the either/or world and in the is/ought world.

The aim of the Tractatus is to show us things: for example, to show us that philosophical or mathematical sentences do not picture anything, and to show the logical structure that language must have.

How about it then? Let's create philosophical sentences here pertaining to one or another moral or political context in which we attempt to picture what we mean within a logical structure.

Wittgenstein viewed this activity of showing what cannot be said as of prime importance for philosophy. This conception of philosophy contrasts with many traditional views, dating back to ancient times, which seek to use rational thought to discover the most basic and fundamental features of reality. Indeed, this is how the Tractatus begins, with an examination of the logical structure of the world. But as the investigation develops, we begin to realize that Wittgenstein’s aim is actually far more radical.

Sure, I may not be understanding this correctly. But, in my view, that's all the more reason then for those who think they do understand it to note how it is applicable given their own interactions with others socially, politically and economically.

And to the extent my own assessment here revolves around dasein is the extent to which new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge might result in my changing my mind about all of this.

Of course, this is also applicable to everyone else here as well.

[Walker]

So, you 'now' are saying and claiming that to understand the actual Truths, in Life, you need to study 'the words', and thus 'the language', of 'dead human beings', right?

At this time in the history of the world, it’s been said that in certain places such an assertion could be grounds for a misunderstanding citation, or perhaps that’s just the next step from a misinformation citation, and yet to occur. That’s a joke, but such an actual place could come to be where there is a glut of attorneys to wear down the system, however even such attorneys ask questions with intent.

The answer to your question is: The example of finding truth via philosophy is just a situation-relevant example, as is potentially every moment. After all, this is a philosophy forum.

If you ask the yourself that identifies with the same myself (i.e. Self), “What are the other examples,” you will find that remembering how a world can be found in a grain of sand, and eternity in an hour, suggests that there are multitudinous examples, one might say a multiverse of examples.

In other words, it is in 'dead philosopher's language' where the answers, and the truth, lies, right?

The answer immediately preceded your question. Truth is everywhere, every moment. Everywhere includes the living words of dead philosophers.

[Age]

At this time in the history of the world, it’s been said that in certain places such an assertion could be grounds for a misunderstanding citation, or perhaps that’s just the next step from a misinformation citation, and yet to occur. That’s a joke, but such an actual place could come to be where there is a glut of attorneys to wear down the system, however even such attorneys ask questions with intent.

The answer to your question is: The example of finding truth via philosophy is just a situation-relevant example, as is potentially every moment. After all, this is a philosophy forum.

If you ask the yourself that identifies with the same myself (i.e. Self), “What are the other examples,” you will find that remembering how a world can be found in a grain of sand, and eternity in an hour, suggests that there are multitudinous examples, one might say a multiverse of examples.

In other words, it is in 'dead philosopher's language' where the answers, and the truth, lies, right?

The answer immediately preceded your question. Truth is everywhere, every moment. Everywhere includes the living words of dead philosophers.

So, no matter what you, or 'dead philosophers' say and claim it is 'the Truth', right?

[Walker]

In other words, it is in 'dead philosopher's language' where the answers, and the truth, lies, right?

The answer immediately preceded your question. Truth is everywhere, every moment. Everywhere includes the living words of dead philosophers.

So, no matter what you, or 'dead philosophers' say and claim it is 'the Truth', right?

If you had written … When truth is found in the words of dead philosophers, the words come to life … then you would have prompted a one word reaction.

[Age]

The answer immediately preceded your question. Truth is everywhere, every moment. Everywhere includes the living words of dead philosophers.

So, no matter what you, or 'dead philosophers' say and claim it is 'the Truth', right?

If you had written … When truth is found in the words of dead philosophers, the words come to life … then you would have prompted a one word reaction.

Making up an excuse for just not answering the question is not making you look 'good'.

[Walker]

If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.

[Age]

If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.

But why are you presuming I do not like the answers?

And, how would any one know how another would answer, exactly?

[Walker]

If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.

But why are you presuming I do not like the answers?

And, how would any one know how another would answer, exactly?

Obviously, because answers only give you questions, not clarity, and certainly not philosophy, at this time in the history of the world when this is written, LOL.

[Age]

If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.

But why are you presuming I do not like the answers?

And, how would any one know how another would answer, exactly?

Obviously, because answers only give you questions, not clarity.

Once again, I ask two very simple clarifying questions, and neither one is answered nor clarified at all.

And, if 'this one' wants to believe that 'answers, only, give you questions', and that 'answers do not give you clarity', then so be it. But, I think 'this one' will find it very difficult to find another human being who agrees with it, here.

[Walker]

But why are you presuming I do not like the answers?

And, how would any one know how another would answer, exactly?

Obviously, because answers only give you questions, not clarity.

Once again, I ask two very simple clarifying questions, and neither one is answered nor clarified at all.

And, if 'this one' wants to believe that 'answers, only, give you questions', and that 'answers do not give you clarity', then so be it. But, I think 'this one' will find it very difficult to find another human being who agrees with it, here.

Slow down, Age. Your questions are walking on my responses, which includes edits.

The Age game.

When you play it often enough, the point can easily become an amusing game of patronizing the same same old Age patterns which have worn out so many with repetition.

Obviously, you have no choice about it, and this generates compassion.

[Age]

Obviously, because answers only give you questions, not clarity.

Once again, I ask two very simple clarifying questions, and neither one is answered nor clarified at all.

And, if 'this one' wants to believe that 'answers, only, give you questions', and that 'answers do not give you clarity', then so be it. But, I think 'this one' will find it very difficult to find another human being who agrees with it, here.

Slow down, Age. Your questions are walking on my responses, which includes edits.

The Age game.

When you play it often enough, the point can easily become an amusing game of patronizing the same same old Age patterns which have worn out so many with repetition.

Obviously, you have no choice about it, and this generates compassion.

'Trying to' deflect away from just how delusional you have been, here, is not going to work on every one else.