Ludwig Wittgenstein once said, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
He also came up with the idea of language-games which refers to the many-to-many relationship between semantics and aesthetics. That is we can never know what someone really means because ideas can be expressed in many ways, and the same way can be used to express many ideas.
Therefore, nobody should ever speak.
Therefore, everyone has tourettes.
Well how the heck did Wittgenstein miss that?
The first quote is from the early W who is quite different from the later W who wrote about language games. In any case his ideas of language games do not mean there is no meaning to language, but rather that the meanings are extremely context dependant and part of actions. Rather than, say, the disembodied to at least some significant degree contextless definitions of words in the dictionary.
That said…I do think that much more communication is like Tourettes outbursts than is commonly thought.
Yes… meaning is part of speaking which is something many people shouldn’t do.
Perhaps if people read the dictionary, they would better understand how to go about it. 
I’m not sure if this is supposed to be a valid conclusion based on W’s statement coupled with his ideas about language games or if you have some other intention with this sentence. IOW I am not sure what you are saying yes to. I am pretty sure it isn’t me and I don’t think it is W either, but let me know.
Though people can do extremely well without ever referring to a dictionary. And immersion type language programs tend to work faster on getting new languages than translation grammar ones with the dictionary open much of the time.
Did Wittgenstein really say that? I ask because I’m interested in the difference between the him and Heidegger and Heidegger wouldn’t likely say something so naive.
Stuart, your conclusions based on Dactoria's statement leads to presupposed conclusions. Wittgenstein didn't imply that just because we can not arrive at exact definitions of meaning, that we can never understand spoken language, rather that we can approximate meaning. This is what language games really does, it implies meaning rather than absolutely identifie it.
I guessed that it was an over exageration. But, my issue is with the idea that language is fundementally inexact in anyway as if it doesn’t always fully reveal some hidden meaning that exists in one’s mind or who knows where. Language can be entirely clear for one who hears it and doesn’t second guess their interpretation of it or the speakers intentions.
What I’m asking is does Wittengenstein fall for the illusion of the world behind the scenes? Heidegger doesn’t as far as I’m aware.
No.
That’s a bit of an extreme conclusion, don’t you think?
I’m inclined to agree with Moreno here in that I think this quote of his applied to the Tractatus, not the P.I.
Putting it in the context of the P.I., he might have said “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must find a different language game.”
The little I understand about Wittgenstein (I read both his major works but understood very little of either) informs me that your suspicion is right–Wittgenstein not only avoided falling for this illusion, but that it is illusory was his entire point. What I do know about Wittgenstein (the later Wittgenstein) is that he thought of words as having no precise meaning but a “family” of meanings instead. We learn the meanings of words, he thought, by example–that is, by observing how they are used. This means that we are going to see words used in slightly different contexts all the time so that each context will hint at a slightly different meaning, which is what he meant by a “family” of meanings. What the meaning of a particular word is for an individual, then, is something like the average or middle of this family, which of course will differ slightly from one person to another, but not so much as to make communication impossible.
I agree with Gib, with the addition of playiing the language games, to establish meaningful discourse, we not only approximate meaning by usage, but we form ideas out of the resemblances which those ideas connote. The appearant meaningfulness of these resembling ideas are ground for the games we can play with language, to avoid touretts.
I agree with what you’re saying about families and what everyone’s said about approximations.
My point is people don’t know in advance whether their utterances are reliable. Therefore, they’re inducing, rather than deducing, whether or not meaning is accurately portrayed from one’s mouth to another’s ear.
The only reason people would speak is out of desperation because they demand something so badly that it’s worth the risk of miscommunication.
Therefore, everyone has tourettes.
Interesting
I don’t think it’s interesting at all. How does a risk of not being understood equate to ‘tourettes’? That’s the most ridiculous nonsequitur I’ve heard all day (granted I’ve only been awake 10 minutes). I don’t see how anything Daktoria says follows from Wittgenstein’s statements actually follows from Wittgenstein’s statements.
I wasn’t going to say that and just see how far it went. :-"
You just asked a double negative. It translates to, “How does uncertainty equate to lack of self-control?”
What’s wrong with that?
Also, no it doesn’t translate to that.
But even if it did, there’s nothing wrong with a question that you call a ‘double negative’ in that sense.
What’s right with that? Burden of proof is on the affirmative.
The problem is you’re not acknowledging the definition of control being equated to certainty.
When people utter or think uncertain ideas, it leaves a gap. That gap is provocative on the basis of information diffusion.
Hence, tourettes.
Oh, YOU’RE that guy who misuses the term ‘burden of proof’ because you can’t defend your ideas. I remember now.
You really should stop using that phrase until you figure out what it means. But I imagine I could say that about a good number of phrases you use.
What’s the proper usage of it?
Then we agree that burden of proof is on the affirmative.
You’re afraid of me using it?
What does it mean to you?
Appeal to self-authority?