A key statement in this preface is that he is seeking to draw a limit to thought. That does not mean to create restrictions for thinking. Instead Wittgenstein is setting out to show that that by mapping the possibilities and impossibilities of thought, we can describe the limits of reality. After all, if we cannot think it then it cannot be -- in our world at least. That is, for something to exist in the world (in actuality or imagination), it must be potentially thinkable by us, otherwise it could never register on our minds at all.
Now, someone might reply; "Well but what if there are things in existence that are beyond our human ability to imagine or conceive?" That seems like a fair objection, though now we must ask the obvious question; "What do you have in mind? Can you give an example?" The answer to that must be "No." If it is not thinkable, then no one can describe it or exemplify it in anyway. So, while the objection seems as if it refers to something, it really has no referent at all. This is what Wittgenstein calls nonsense. No because it is silly, but because a sentence has a sense just in so far as it refers to some possible state of affairs in the world. Even if it is false or ridiculous, a sentence has sense if it refers to a possible combination of elements. This is part of Wittgenstein's explanation of what meaning is. As already noted, the words;
there are things in existence that are beyond our human ability to imagine or conceive.
seem like an ordinary sentence, so we are likely to take it seriously (i.e. grant that it could be true). Yet, Wittgenstein's analysis shows that such a string of words has no referent (does not refer to anything) and so is without a sense -- is senseless -- is nonsense -- is meaningless. Such a sentence is neither true not false. Because only sentences with a sense can be true or false (the sense is what truth and falsity is based on).
My objection is this. There are things in existence that are beyond a dog's ability to imagine or conceive.
There are things in existence that are beyond a dolphin's ability to imagine or conceive.
Continuing with this reasoning, could it not be the case that there are lifeforms in the universe vastly more intelligent than humans are, which CAN imagine or conceive things in existence, which are above our human ability to imagine or conceive?
Basically, it seems like Wittgenstein is assuming humans are currently and will always be the most intellect lifeforms. There could be a more intelligent life form that could imagine or conceive of things we can't.
I think the article you cited is misrepresenting Wittgenstein. He's not making a metaphysical nonexistence claim -- rather, he's making a claim about linguistic intractability or incoherence. One who speaks of an intractable matter is making a fool of himself. Wittgenstein's position impales a person asserting nonexistence as much as it would impale a person asserting existence.
A dog can't do calculus, so imagine a dog trying to teach calculus. Similiarly with humans, witness the enormous number of people who think God is intractable to us, yet go around yammering about him all the same.
That article also commits a number of other mistakes. For instance, in the part you quoted, there is an implied notion that proof by example is the only kind of proof, but that's fallacious. (in mathematics, there are things that provably exist and provably possess no concrete examples, eg. a subset of the real numbers that lacks the Baire property)
Your response is also in error, because you appear to be performing an unjustified induction. You're saying "dolphins are like this and dogs are like this, and so on... so humans are like this as well," but your induction steps are not connected by any logic that forces the ultimate conclusion. Wittgenstein is writing for humans using human language; his argument would, of course, not be relevant to some distinct kind of creature who does not satisfy the hypotheses.
there are things in existence that are beyond our human ability to imagine or conceive.
seem like an ordinary sentence, so we are likely to take it seriously (i.e. grant that it could be true). Yet, Wittgenstein's analysis shows that such a string of words has no referent (does not refer to anything) and so is without a sense -- is senseless -- is nonsense -- is meaningless. Such a sentence is neither true not false. Because only sentences with a sense can be true or false (the sense is what truth and falsity is based on).My objection is this. There are things in existence that are beyond a dog's ability to imagine or conceive.
There are things in existence that are beyond a dolphin's ability to imagine or conceive.
Continuing with this reasoning, could it not be the case that there are lifeforms in the universe vastly more intelligent than humans are, which CAN imagine or conceive things in existence, which are above our human ability to imagine or conceive?
Basically, it seems like Wittgenstein is assuming humans are currently and will always be the most intellect lifeforms. There could be a more intelligent life form that could imagine or conceive of things we can't.
You're committing a category error. Dogs and dolphins, as far as we can see, don't have a conceptual faculty- or have one that is extremely limited and is fundamentally different from humans. A dog and a dolphin can't conceive or imagine things; doing so is conceptualizing, and dogs and dolphins lack such an ability.
Literally, this is what separates us from animals. Wittgenstein is saying that there are claims which are philosophically arbitrary, that is, they are made without reference to reality and evidence. Your statement that there may be a farther "advanced" species than humans is just such a statement. We don't have evidence for such a species, so we have to set that statement aside until we do. Then we can deal with it.
Fundamentally, I think your error comes from viewing human consciousnesses as if it merely means that humans are smarter than animals. This isn't the case. Conceptualization is uniquely human (or rather, unique to rational beings; again, humans are the only ones that we currently know of).
Does that mean that in the course of human evolution, one day a switch was flipped and we went from having no conceptual powers, to having the ability to conceive of everything that modern humans can conceive of, with nothing in between?
Felllix, while dogs may have been a poor example, the baseless exclamation that only humans can have thoughts is unnecessary.
1) As Tiax point out, human thought evolved just as everything else has. Therefore an ancestor of ours almost assuredly had thoughts, quite quite similar to our own, but only 95% of the way there. Which leads us back to the original point.
2) There is direct evidence that certain animals have thoughts. Gorillas and elephants recognize there own reflections in pools of water (unlike Beta Fish which cannot recognize their own reflections). Dolphins have been shown to have a wide range of ability including possible language ability (if not for the lack of throats).
3) Mostly a semantic point about human thought. People vary in terms of creativity, ingenuity, and just plan old ability to imagine things. Some people, now matter how hard they try cannot imagine things we know exist (and can even describe). Just because you or I cannot imagine something, doesn't mean that a 3rd party cannot. Just because I could never fathom something today doesn't mean it won't be commonplace 10 years from now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Wittgenstein/wittgenstein.html
My objection is this. There are things in existence that are beyond a dog's ability to imagine or conceive.
There are things in existence that are beyond a dolphin's ability to imagine or conceive.
Continuing with this reasoning, could it not be the case that there are lifeforms in the universe vastly more intelligent than humans are, which CAN imagine or conceive things in existence, which are above our human ability to imagine or conceive?
Basically, it seems like Wittgenstein is assuming humans are currently and will always be the most intellect lifeforms. There could be a more intelligent life form that could imagine or conceive of things we can't.
A dog can't do calculus, so imagine a dog trying to teach calculus. Similiarly with humans, witness the enormous number of people who think God is intractable to us, yet go around yammering about him all the same.
That article also commits a number of other mistakes. For instance, in the part you quoted, there is an implied notion that proof by example is the only kind of proof, but that's fallacious. (in mathematics, there are things that provably exist and provably possess no concrete examples, eg. a subset of the real numbers that lacks the Baire property)
Your response is also in error, because you appear to be performing an unjustified induction. You're saying "dolphins are like this and dogs are like this, and so on... so humans are like this as well," but your induction steps are not connected by any logic that forces the ultimate conclusion. Wittgenstein is writing for humans using human language; his argument would, of course, not be relevant to some distinct kind of creature who does not satisfy the hypotheses.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
You're committing a category error. Dogs and dolphins, as far as we can see, don't have a conceptual faculty- or have one that is extremely limited and is fundamentally different from humans. A dog and a dolphin can't conceive or imagine things; doing so is conceptualizing, and dogs and dolphins lack such an ability.
Literally, this is what separates us from animals. Wittgenstein is saying that there are claims which are philosophically arbitrary, that is, they are made without reference to reality and evidence. Your statement that there may be a farther "advanced" species than humans is just such a statement. We don't have evidence for such a species, so we have to set that statement aside until we do. Then we can deal with it.
Fundamentally, I think your error comes from viewing human consciousnesses as if it merely means that humans are smarter than animals. This isn't the case. Conceptualization is uniquely human (or rather, unique to rational beings; again, humans are the only ones that we currently know of).
When in doubt, call a judge.
Objectivist here. Hit me up to talk philosophy.
1) As Tiax point out, human thought evolved just as everything else has. Therefore an ancestor of ours almost assuredly had thoughts, quite quite similar to our own, but only 95% of the way there. Which leads us back to the original point.
2) There is direct evidence that certain animals have thoughts. Gorillas and elephants recognize there own reflections in pools of water (unlike Beta Fish which cannot recognize their own reflections). Dolphins have been shown to have a wide range of ability including possible language ability (if not for the lack of throats).
3) Mostly a semantic point about human thought. People vary in terms of creativity, ingenuity, and just plan old ability to imagine things. Some people, now matter how hard they try cannot imagine things we know exist (and can even describe). Just because you or I cannot imagine something, doesn't mean that a 3rd party cannot. Just because I could never fathom something today doesn't mean it won't be commonplace 10 years from now.