CDZ Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent

[RandomPoster]

Ludwig Wittgenstein once famously stated "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" and I'm not exactly sure what he meant. In the past, I have seen the quote used to try and discredit and demean people who have spoken incorrectly. I personally do not interpret the quote in the same manner. I instead see the statement as a plea to encourage people to avoid engaging in pointless "deep" philosophical discussions.

For example, if I say that Abraham Lincoln was born in a particular year and turn out to be incorrect in that assertion, I can be correctly informed on the matter by a conversational partner. My point is that the conversation was not an exercise in futility. Going forward, I would have more accurate knowledge of and be able to more correctly comment on Abraham Lincoln's year of birth. My speaking up, even incorrectly, would have positive value in its result. In fact, remaining silent would have increased my likelihood of remaining misinformed on the subject and I would have been ill advised to do so.

However, if I strike up a conversation about some vague, open ended, divergent pseudo-question that not only do I have no knowledge of, except that no human being will most assuredly ever have knowledge of, I would indeed be speaking of a topic on which we should all remain silent.
​

 

[there4eyeM]

Perhaps authority is what is being addressed; i.e., one may engage in a topic one is not or cannot be certain about ('God', for example) in very general ways, but must restrain from using verbiage that connotes authoritative, affirmative authority.

 

[RandomPoster]

Perhaps authority is what is being addressed; i.e., one may engage in a topic one is not or cannot be certain about ('God', for example) in very general ways, but must restrain from using verbiage that connotes authoritative, affirmative authority.

I completely agree with the sentiment of refraining from improper claims of authority or even assertive confidence on the issue at hand, except he does seem to be speaking in regards to the subject matter itself on which one chooses to speak.

 

[konradv]

Perhaps authority is what is being addressed; i.e., one may engage in a topic one is not or cannot be certain about ('God', for example) in very general ways, but must restrain from using verbiage that connotes authoritative, affirmative authority.

I completely agree with the sentiment of refraining from improper claims of authority or even assertive confidence on the issue at hand, except he does seem to be speaking in regards to the subject matter itself on which one chooses to speak.

Could it be a variation on "better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"?

 

[RandomPoster]

Perhaps authority is what is being addressed; i.e., one may engage in a topic one is not or cannot be certain about ('God', for example) in very general ways, but must restrain from using verbiage that connotes authoritative, affirmative authority.

I completely agree with the sentiment of refraining from improper claims of authority or even assertive confidence on the issue at hand, except he does seem to be speaking in regards to the subject matter itself on which one chooses to speak.

Could it be a variation on "better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"?

I personally believe that it had more to do with avoiding topics that all human beings will forever remain fools on and advising us to not waste time posturing on such pointless, circular topics that seem to inevitably degenerate into mental masturbation. For example, trading clever barbs about the meaning of meaning or the finer distinctions of various types of nothingness do not tend to be answered in the positive or negative and do not lead to advancements in human knowledge.

 

[Gdjjr]

Knowledge isn't bias in its origin- sometimes we may think what someone says has little or no value, but, knowledge can manifest itself in ways unimaginable. Admittedly, people who jabber just to hear their heads are at times a nuisance, but, too, clouds have silver linings.
I'm not sure any have the authority to tell others their opinion doesn't count.

 

[Circe]

...if I strike up a conversation about some vague, open ended, divergent pseudo-question that not only do I have no knowledge of, except that no human being will most assuredly ever have knowledge of, I would indeed be speaking of a topic on which we should all remain silent.
​

Such a question as "What is time?" or "Is there alien intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe?"

It seems to me no one has authority over whether we "should" talk about such subjects or not. And no one who is offended by idle talk, as such a person considers such subjects, would even know if most people talk about subjects that person doesn't like.

 

[Gdjjr]

It seems Mr. Wittgenstein was a bit of an eccentric and absolutely esoteric so I'm not real sure the quote could be applied to everyday conversation.

Ludwig Wittgenstein - Wikipedia

 

[RandomPoster]

...if I strike up a conversation about some vague, open ended, divergent pseudo-question that not only do I have no knowledge of, except that no human being will most assuredly ever have knowledge of, I would indeed be speaking of a topic on which we should all remain silent.
​

Such a question as "What is time?" or "Is there alien intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe?"

It seems to me no one has authority over whether we "should" talk about such subjects or not. And no one who is offended by idle talk, as such a person considers such subjects, would even know if most people talk about subjects that person doesn't like.

I don't know if it is a matter of being offended so much as voicing an opinion that striking up conversations that you know will lead nowhere is not productive and is often more about posturing. I believe that philosophy is a starting point with a goal in mind. There are certain topics that we pretty much know we will never have any answers to at least in the foreseeable future and we should probably instead focus on problems we can actually solve since solving problems is the purpose of thinking.

 

[konradv]

Just an observation, but to follow "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" would be the end of this board, IMO. Ultimately 99% of the time we're talking about things we really don't know about.

 

[Circe]

I don't know if it is a matter of being offended so much as voicing an opinion that striking up conversations that you know will lead nowhere is not productive and is often more about posturing. I believe that philosophy is a starting point with a goal in mind. There are certain topics that we pretty much know we will never have any answers to at least in the foreseeable future and we should probably instead focus on problems we can actually solve since solving problems is the purpose of thinking.

What are examples of such topics?

 

[RandomPoster]

I don't know if it is a matter of being offended so much as voicing an opinion that striking up conversations that you know will lead nowhere is not productive and is often more about posturing. I believe that philosophy is a starting point with a goal in mind. There are certain topics that we pretty much know we will never have any answers to at least in the foreseeable future and we should probably instead focus on problems we can actually solve since solving problems is the purpose of thinking.

What are examples of such topics?

For example, if one is stuck on a technical problem, striking up a conversation may help. Even political issues typically lead people involved more knowledgeable afterwards. Really any topic that is not intentionally unanswerable can be worthwhile. Mostly, I simply had what I believe is a different interpretation of the statement than what I have heard others express.

 

[sartre play]

I like to ask questions, most go unanswered or repeat popular propaganda of the moment.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Ludwig Wittgenstein once famously stated "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" and I'm not exactly sure what he meant. In the past, I have seen the quote used to try and discredit and demean people who have spoken incorrectly. I personally do not interpret the quote in the same manner. I instead see the statement as a plea to encourage people to avoid engaging in pointless "deep" philosophical discussions.

For example, if I say that Abraham Lincoln was born in a particular year and turn out to be incorrect in that assertion, I can be correctly informed on the matter by a conversational partner. My point is that the conversation was not an exercise in futility. Going forward, I would have more accurate knowledge of and be able to more correctly comment on Abraham Lincoln's year of birth. My speaking up, even incorrectly, would have positive value in its result. In fact, remaining silent would have increased my likelihood of remaining misinformed on the subject and I would have been ill advised to do so.

However, if I strike up a conversation about some vague, open ended, divergent pseudo-question that not only do I have no knowledge of, except that no human being will most assuredly ever have knowledge of, I would indeed be speaking of a topic on which we should all remain silent.
​

"However, if I strike up a conversation about some vague, open ended, divergent pseudo-question that not only do I have no knowledge of, except that no human being will most assuredly ever have knowledge of, I would indeed be speaking of a topic on which we should all remain silent"


then we must stop talking about god and religion

 

[RandomPoster]

Ludwig Wittgenstein once famously stated "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" and I'm not exactly sure what he meant. In the past, I have seen the quote used to try and discredit and demean people who have spoken incorrectly. I personally do not interpret the quote in the same manner. I instead see the statement as a plea to encourage people to avoid engaging in pointless "deep" philosophical discussions.

For example, if I say that Abraham Lincoln was born in a particular year and turn out to be incorrect in that assertion, I can be correctly informed on the matter by a conversational partner. My point is that the conversation was not an exercise in futility. Going forward, I would have more accurate knowledge of and be able to more correctly comment on Abraham Lincoln's year of birth. My speaking up, even incorrectly, would have positive value in its result. In fact, remaining silent would have increased my likelihood of remaining misinformed on the subject and I would have been ill advised to do so.

However, if I strike up a conversation about some vague, open ended, divergent pseudo-question that not only do I have no knowledge of, except that no human being will most assuredly ever have knowledge of, I would indeed be speaking of a topic on which we should all remain silent.
​

"However, if I strike up a conversation about some vague, open ended, divergent pseudo-question that not only do I have no knowledge of, except that no human being will most assuredly ever have knowledge of, I would indeed be speaking of a topic on which we should all remain silent"


then we must stop talking about god and religion

I'm agnostic. Religion doesn't really concern me.

 

[there4eyeM]

Religion devolves into the political more often than not, and in general does not enhance the quality of general understanding. It is at most a sign post by the road.
In that way, religion can be discussed, in an objective manner.
'God' is even more 'dangerous', and even more so now that no one knows what anyone else means (despite the loudly vocal who profess 'authority').
We can share our personal insights, yet that may not be a favor either to others or ourselves.
An interesting quotation of Buddha, quoting here liberally (oops, excuse that word!) is to the effect, "Stop, stop! Do not speak! Even to think is too much!"
Still, he said that.
Jus' sayin'

 

[Circe]

then we must stop talking about god and religion

Agreed. But what else? Seems to me some people might want to rule out topics prematurely. For instance, "what is time? IS there any such thing as time?" Some might say, "Sure, don't be silly! Shut up!" But philosophy has been working with time a lot in the last couple centuries. I love this topic.

On the other hand, I am sympathetic to what I think is the thread parent's point that some people just play word games --- introduce topics that can't be solved and they don't mean for them to be. Abortion is probably one of those sort of topics. Lots of word games, like is a fetus a human, dah-dah-dah. I guess what is going on is word gaming that isn't actually relevant, intended to lock people up in word games.

 

[flacaltenn]

However, if I strike up a conversation about some vague, open ended, divergent pseudo-question that not only do I have no knowledge of, except that no human being will most assuredly ever have knowledge of, I would indeed be speaking of a topic on which we should all remain silent.

That advice you want to discuss rules out being a physicist then.... Especially, a "theoretical one"...

Seriously -- people in science and engineering would have a hard time complying with that advice IMO... Sometimes in those avocations, you are truly asking vague, open-ended questions to STIMULATE a mental model of something yet to be conceived or built... And yes, sometimes you don't reach any substantial new knowledge...