Wittgenstein vs thinking with words

[Grayman]

It makes little sense to me that the reality could be confined to language. Although Wittgenstein may just be postulating that our minds conception of reality is confined to language, I just think he is a person who thinks with words and not with pictures. I say understanding trancends definition and that we know much and will never be able to express it. Am I in disagreement with Wittgenstein or am I misunderstanding the concept?

 

[WALKYRIA]

No!

 

[DelusiveNinja]

Am I in disagreement with Wittgenstein or am I misunderstanding the concept?

Your initial post gives us, the reader, a little bit of your perspective in regards to "Wittgenstein's concept". However, it does not introduce his concept with links, names, or references, so a wealth of individuals could have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Luckily, I consider myself to be quite adept at dealing with information having little to no background.

Regardless of what this "Wittgenstein's concept" is:

It makes little sense to me that the reality could be confined to language.

Reality is not confined to only language. Reality is only vaguely described using languages, images, and other sorts of communication. These forms of communication rarely are able to depict reality in its entirety. In other words, it'd be impossible to accurately describe all of reality using any one form of communication.

It's probably possible to capture the entirety of tiny pieces though.

Although Wittgenstein may just be postulating that our minds conception of reality is confined to language, I just think he is a person who thinks with words and not with pictures. I say understanding trancends definition and that we know much and will never be able to express it. Am I in disagreement with Wittgenstein or am I misunderstanding the concept?

No one can verify without background...

If what he was saying is that the whole of reality can be described using language, then you probably are in disagreement, but until that is verified , there still is a equal possibility that you are misunderstanding what Wittgenstein is saying.

 

[QuickTwist]

I would not say reality is dependent on language but psychology is to a large extent. Genetics also play a role as well as circumstance.

 

[Black Rose]

When subjective reality is in conflict with objective reality words only relate to concepts not objects. So well we may be able to relate the subjective to the objective communication may lead to us to misconstrue the subjective experiences of others point of view on reality.

Thinking in pictures is mysticism to me for example if I thought is was not real but others claim to do so, so I believe them. Behaviorists don't consider the subjective as real.

 

[QuickTwist]

@Animekitty, you are very good at what you do. Don't ever change.

 

[Grayman]

When subjective reality is in conflict with objective reality words only relate to concepts not objects. So well we may be able to relate the subjective to the objective communication may lead to us to misconstrue the subjective experiences of others point of view on reality.

Thinking in pictures is mysticism to me for example if I thought is was not real but others claim to do so, so I believe them. Behaviorists don't consider the subjective as real.

Wittgenstein is a behaviorist? So he sees the world as only objective. Thus it becomes possible to encase all into language, ideally. In the end he is disregarding the varied experiences of every subjective view and all their varied ideals and perceptions internally and externally.

Am I understanding this?

 

[Latte]

I haven't read anything from him, but I know language is sometimes used in philosophy in a broader definition than verbal language. A definition which can encompass any "cognitive language", such as those utilizing visual aspects or any other aspect. Even binary or the parameters of the universe being potentially describable as a language. A shape in which that which is perceived or exists takes form.

I don't know his ideas though, and have met several very highly intelligent people who have or had disbelief in abstract cognition where verbal language does not play a central or any role, so I won't discount the possibility that he is ignorant about the possibilities the mind has for cognition without involving verbal language.

It can be hard to imagine. Like, I can't imagine how it is to hear sound without visuals being central to the experience (more central than the sound). It's just impossible for me. Probably likewise unimaginable to imagine abstract thought without verbal language when verbal language is always central in one's own abstract thoughts. It's not weird if people are initially skeptical when they first hear about it, or won't come up with the idea of the possibility on their own at all.

 

[Black Rose]

Wittgenstein is a behaviorist? So he sees the world as only objective. Thus it becomes possible to encase all into language, ideally. In the end he is disregarding the varied experiences of every subjective view and all their varied ideals and perceptions internally and externally.

Am I understanding this?

Actual behaviorism is an aside to the believing in one of the two positions. When we say pain is not a learned behavior we are not saying only perception are real and no innate truth of can be derived from them. It is indefinite that behaviors contain truth or that symbols do contain truth. So they are the same in not having any meaning other than when we say some abstractions are that which we cannot speak of. Truth would not be language but meaning. Your subjective understanding of meaning is an objective ideal something I think would be rejected if you thought only symbols stand alone or that pain is learned.

 

[Coolydudey]

We can perceive more abstractions than those contained simply in words or their combinations. e.g., the concept of addition is an abstraction (across different numbers one can use), but not one captured by words, but simply referred to by them (the word addition refers to said abstraction but doesn't capture it). Abstractions being the basis for thought, our thought is clearly not limited only by language. Although language does place some limits...