Was he right, /hum/?

I do only have a cursory knowledge of Wittgenstein, but unless you explain WHY I am wrong, I can't believe you have any better of an understanding. If you do have a better understanding, actually using it to help everyone else understand this complex subject is surely better than just calling people names. So, unironically, tell me what I got wrong.

It's a rather annoying read in its way, drifting from one thing to the next: "but how do u really KNOW what u mean, maaan." The approach seems to typify the modern caricature of a philosopher, that normies/plebs use to dismiss the discipline.

So far I prefer the Tractatus.

it's straight up not philosophy unless you take philosophy to be what he says it is, which by the way no one does.

you have to read him first, faggot. I'm not giving you a crash course. this thread was a failure.

The limits of the conceptual world: yes, but the world itself: no.

Direct, immediate perception and experience of reality itself is always possible at every moment. It is not dependent on any idea, language, concept, mental construct, etc.

t. Buddhism

>mfw someone implies that shit

Ich weiß für mich, daß ich, solang ich mein Erlebnis in Worten zusammenfassen kann, gewiß keine Musik hierüber machen würde.

Only insofar as you have participated in it, and not because of anything that the OP (and presumably the later posts that you were abusive towards) wrote.

t. not the OP.

>Direct, immediate perception and experience of reality itself is always possible at every moment.

That's cute.

If you have a thought and can't express it, is it just an inarticulable sensation? is what he's getting at here. If a tree falls down in the woods...etc

It comes down to the definition of "thought"

Naw mane
dis wat Luddie slick witty awl bout

shut

this

>If you have a thought and can't express it
then you didn't have a thought

>If a tree falls down in the woods...etc
"Does the string 7777 occur at any point in the decimal expansion of π?" ()

Animals dont have thoughts?

how could you ever know if they did?

In a sense, but only because everything is languege, this is how we percieve reality through movement and communication of information between the self that observes and actualizes reality and the object it observes.

This is the correct answer. OP's quote comes from the Tractatus, not from the PI, and indeed that quote basically means he thought language could be reduced to propositional logic, and the word could be reduced to experiences that could be expressed by propositions... Thus both world and lenguage have the same limits.

HAHAHAHAH

so, let me get this straight. what you're telling me is that, having, of course, read the tractatus, you think the tractatus says:
>all human emotion, expression and experience can be captured through language, and that the boundaries of a given language thus impact the boundaries of such experiences

next

No you faggot. But about things without correlate to the world, or which can't be expressed through propositions, we can't say anything true or false.

You could state your own view on this instead of autistically shouting "you wrong".

faggot

The movie Arrival explores this concept of language defining how we see the world.
You should check it out.

don't know why that guy is so mad, this is correct

op quote is from the tractatus not pi

>muh artifical noumenon/phenomenon distinction
>can't even into non-duality
>can't even ding an sich through meditation and mindfulness

>can't even ding an sich through meditation and mindfulness

It ain't no "ding an sich" is there is a "through" involved, m8

our direct, immediate perception is limited by how our mind makes sense of what we perceive, which is in turn limited by language.

What

Usually this is that case. But it is also possible to stop filtering perception through ideas. This is partly what's meant by "enlightenment".