Well, of course if you *name* it...

By -
Here is a researcher who claims dolphins aren't uniquely intelligent among non-human animals. And perhaps he is correct! I have no reason to doubt him, in any case. But along the way, he makes a bold claim: that human language is "limitless in its ability to discuss subject matter." And he backs this up by noting: "But humans can talk about anything—abstract ideas, concrete ideas—you name it and we can discuss it."

Well, yes, I have no doubt that anything we name can be discussed using language... in fact, I have no doubt that once you have named it, it already is being discussed using language!

Wittgenstein was not so confident: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy1:53 PM

    That is absolutely hilarious. Was the writer being intentionally ironic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah4:30 PM

      I don't see any evidence that he was, but in a short quote, it is hard to tell.

      Delete
  2. The Arthurian5:56 PM

    Gene, I find that when I write, one post quite often leads into the next -- not by design, but simply because I was thinking along certain lines.

    You quote Wittgenstein: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

    I was wondering if the Andy Borowitz post led you to Wittgenstein :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah6:01 PM

      I don't *think* so: I think it was just my web browsing sequence!

      Delete
  3. Samson Corwell8:50 PM

    Wittgenstein was not so confident: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

    Such as? What does Wittgenstein mean here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah8:52 PM

      So, you want me to *speak* about the things that cannot be spoken of?

      Please see the original post.

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell12:30 AM

      Do you agree with him?

      Delete
    3. gcallah1:41 AM

      Yes, I think there are realms of experience where words fail us. The Zen koan is an attempt to expose these areas with words.

      Delete
  4. Mike B.1:27 AM

    I've always liked that quote, even though I don't believe it is quite correct. It seems to me that any limits of discourse are not essential limits inherent to language itself. For instance, it is true that you can't intelligibly discuss the subjective experience of color with a person who was born blind...but you could do so, in principle, if you could find a way to make him see. This analogy applies, I think, to other things that one might be tempted to think cannot be spoken of. Sometimes you must unlock the listener's ears before speaking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:43 AM

      I don't think Wittgenstein would have rejected your statement, "Sometimes you must unlock the listener's ears before speaking."

      I certainly don't!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more