Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must stay silent

He's kind of cute to be honest.

Why does Hitler have JUST hair?

This quote is stupid because if you can't speak of it you're not going to talk about it anyway.

Philosophy is full of dumb sayings like that that only sound deep to hippies but if you actually think about it, it's meaningless.

Exactly. The fact that he isn't able to speak on should be enough of a reason for him to not talk about it. Unless he's a dumbass and insists on it.
But, in my opinion, there really shouldn't be a saying in order to convince people like that not to blab on stuff they don't know lol

Stop pushing this meme. They never met.

>living in an age where literally everyone has an opinion on everything despite lack of knowledge in subjects
>still not seeing the relevancy of quote
Kek.

that'sn't witty

he doesn't phrase it well. "where of one cannot speak" suggests that you are literally incapable of talking of subjects you're ignorant about.

Whereof =/= Wherefore

he didn't have the internet like yourself to spoonfeed him knowledge :)

Still doesn't take away the fact that the quote, in a decently structured social environment, would have no need to exist.
Also, its not like smashing this quote into the ignorant opinion-spouters faces is gonna do any good. Since most of them will just go ''muh free speech'' and go on with their retarded prosing.

> "where of one cannot speak" suggests that you are literally incapable of talking of subjects you're ignorant about.
No, you just assumed that's what it means, and then said it was stupid of him to suggest that. You projected your own meaning on to the quote, and then said that that meaning is stupid.

There's no reason to think that "whereof one cannot speak means" means "whereof one is ignorant." There is a clear literal meaning "what you are unable to speak about."

>in a decently structured social environment, would have no need to exist
What is that retarded babble even supposed to mean?

That is a bad argument. You could also say "in a decently structures environment, you wouldn't need to say a^2 + b^2 = c^2."

The last proposition is obviously an aphorism, since he doesn't prove it. Nigga relax.

I assume he means if society wasn't such a fuckfest his quote would be unneeded

>Also, its not like smashing this quote into the ignorant opinion-spouters faces is gonna do any good.
Whereof your post is most illustrative.

Yes.

>How does it compute with simple propositions
Sorry don't understand the question

Not really. Because while one is a social construct (you shouldn't give input on shit you don't know about) your own mind is supposed to build and understand, the other is a principal created by a mathematician using facts. Which is why you don't see as much people arguing against that compared the ammount aguing against what the quote mentions shouldn't be done.

That's not at all what his quote was addressing though

>(you shouldn't give input on shit you don't know about)
see

If we're going to go with this multiple interpretation thingie we may as well stop it here. Or get some context on the quote so we can narrow it down. Since anything anyone says could easily be discarded by going ''uh thats not exactly what he meant because he could be talking about this or that''.

No, you just ascribed the most simpleminded and obvious meaning onto a quote that you don't understand and criticised witty for it, and in doing so, commited the very act you've been railing against (speaking on that of which you are ignorant) so fuck off and go read something

If it is helpful, another common English translation of this quote is "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."

>you didn't think of a quote in the super deep philosofical way I did thus you're ignorant and should fuck off
K den.

Thanks buddy. That really helps.

So, according to the translation, the speech impairment interpetation, while not debunked, loses a lot of its logic. Which means a point for the social construct kid.

It's neither deep nor philosophical and really obvious to everyone who's not desperately trying to waste time being contrarian on the internet.

>really obvious to everyone who's not desperately trying to waste time being contrarian on the internet.
>trying to waste time being contrarian

ffs im out

B says more than A, because B says what A says but more.

I do not know Wittgenstein, but I always assumed it was a self-evident axiom.

What you cannot say, you must pass over it in silence. Because you can't say it, you will pass over it in silence. When you can't say something, you won't say it. etc

It depends on what he meant with the use of ''must''. Since it could mean either that you are obligated by something to pass over it and will be frowned upon if you don't, or that you are literally unable to not pass it over by any means whatsoever.

>and will be frowned upon if you don't
Disregard this part. I just realized how retarded this statement is.

mfw

Guys pick the "Wittgenstein’s Tractatus: A Student’s Edition" because you don't understand shit.

>Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must stay silent.
That's akin to Kant's claim about special methapysics, but without the Ideas being regulative principles.

Best post in this thread so far.

>if you are physically incapable of doing something then i would suggest making the decision to not do it
this is what you take his words to mean?

he is saying that you shouldn't even try to articulate what lies beyond the limits of language, and that to do so is a fundamental philosophical error
an example he concerns himself with in the Tractatus is trying to describe the logical form of language in language

>plebs unable to recognize that Wittgenstein was completing the quietist tradition initiated by Parmenides

unbelievable

It is.

The therapeutic reading of (esp. late) Wittgenstein is patrician for sure, but do you really mean to say that Parmenides was a quietist?

He was the first one (in writing) to suggest the idea that we should not attempt to express inexpressible concepts. Obviously they're not entirely the same, but I think there's a pretty clear similarity between the two views.

Where does Parmenides express this?

>The other, namely, that It is not, and that it must needs not be,—
>that, I tell thee, is a path that none can learn of at all.
>For thou canst not know what is not—that is impossible—
nor utter it; . . .
>. . . for it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be

All readings of Wittgenstein are SHIT Lmao.

Do you people actually think he had a uniform view, theory or therapeutic analysis of Philosophy?

Wittgenstein was just asking questions, provoking one to think. He was part of no philosophical movement.

Christ, this is the problem with people who study history or any particular famous person, they instantly think that their work was written by the grace of God and must be deeply analysed to reveal the hidden secret.

this desu

wittgenstein is still the best philosopher tho

well I guess so, but he's really just saying that nothing comes from nothing and that knowledge/thought of nothing isn't knowledge/thought

I don't think we get a genuine limitative/transcendental program until Kant

the therapeutic reading explicitly rejects imputing a uniform view or theory to him
keep plebing though

>therapeutic reading
What the fuck is this shit
Do drugs
Or get laid
Reading autism is hardly therapeutic

I know that, brainlet. I was reading Cavell when you were shitting diapers.

Don't bother replying, cuck!

>Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must stay silent.

What about the hypothesis that this sentence is essentially aimed at Wittgenstein's own homosexuality ? Did anyone defend it seriously ? It's the only way it could be interesting.

haha like he's describing being in the closet??

> Do drugs
cant
> get laid
cant
> Reading autism
can

and helps a bit

Read the Tractatus you dumb mother fucker

Not "nothing" but "Nothing".

My god, what an adorable child

holy fuck.
i very much hope you don't mean that.
if you can't even get high off a fucking book, and would actually prefer sex and drugs over reading and writing because of this tragic shortcoming,
if you are actually serious, then i would like to tell you, very firmly, that you need to evaluate how you're reading and fix this. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not actually a pile of sludge totally incapable of reading properly, but obviously you were misled at some point in your life and have almost entirely stunted the effectiveness of reading for yourself. at the very least, each word you consume should send intense orgasmic waves throughout your body. if you don't even feel a little bit of this, that confirms that you are not experiencing even 0.5% of the potential effectiveness of a good book.