What does Wittgenstein mean by the statement – "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"? Critically discuss.

What does Wittgenstein mean by the statement – "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent?" Critically discuss.

← all philosophy optional previous year questions

The following answer addresses the question "What does Wittgenstein mean by the statement – "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent?" Critically discuss.".

What Does Wittgenstein Mean by the Statement – "Whereof One Cannot Speak, Thereof One Must Be Silent?"

Ludwig Wittgenstein's statement, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent," is a profound and enigmatic assertion that has been the subject of extensive philosophical debate. This statement appears in his later work, "Philosophical Investigations," and encapsulates a central theme in his philosophy: the limits of language and the importance of understanding the conditions under which language can be meaningfully used. To critically discuss this statement, we must delve into the context, the implications, and the criticisms surrounding it.

Context and Background

Wittgenstein's philosophical journey is marked by a significant shift in his views, moving from the early, more formalist and logical approach of the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" to the later, more pragmatic and ordinary language philosophy of the "Philosophical Investigations." The statement "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" is a product of this later phase, reflecting his newfound interest in the everyday use of language and the limitations of traditional philosophical methods.

The Limits of Language

1. Private Language Argument

Wittgenstein's statement can be understood in the context of his private language argument. In "Philosophical Investigations," he argues that a private language, one that only a single person can understand, is impossible. The idea of a private language is problematic because it would lack a public criterion for meaning. Wittgenstein suggests that language is inherently public and that meaning arises from the shared understanding and use of language within a community.

• Example: Consider the concept of "pain." While each individual experiences pain subjectively, the concept of pain is meaningful only because we can communicate our experiences of pain to others and they can understand and respond to us. Without this public dimension, the concept of pain would be incomprehensible.

2. The Limits of Descriptive Language

Wittgenstein also argues that there are certain things that cannot be described or spoken about in language. These are often referred to as "mystical" or "ineffable" experiences. He suggests that trying to describe such experiences in language is like trying to point to the moon with a finger: the finger is not the moon, and the description is not the experience itself.

• Example: The experience of "seeing red" is a private, subjective experience that cannot be fully captured in language. While we can describe the color red and the experience of seeing it, we cannot convey the exact subjective experience of seeing red to someone who has never seen it before.

The Importance of Silence

1. Avoiding Misuse of Language

Wittgenstein's statement underscores the importance of silence in avoiding the misuse of language. He argues that many philosophical problems arise from a misunderstanding of the conditions under which language can be meaningfully used. By remaining silent about certain topics, we can avoid the temptation to use language in ways that are not appropriate or meaningful.

• Example: The question "What is the meaning of life?" is often considered a philosophical puzzle. Wittgenstein would argue that this question is not meaningful because it assumes that "meaning" can be attributed to life in a way that is not supported by our ordinary use of language. By remaining silent about such questions, we can avoid the confusion and misunderstanding that often accompany them.

2. The Role of Silence in Understanding

Silence also plays a crucial role in Wittgenstein's philosophy of understanding. He suggests that understanding is not a matter of grasping abstract concepts or theories but of seeing how language is used in specific contexts. By remaining silent about certain topics, we can allow ourselves to be open to the nuances and complexities of language use.

• Example: In a conversation, remaining silent can be a powerful way of showing that we understand the speaker's point without needing to respond with a verbal explanation. This silence can be a form of active listening and understanding.

Criticisms and Interpretations

1. Overemphasis on Silence

One criticism of Wittgenstein's statement is that it places too much emphasis on silence. Some philosophers argue that Wittgenstein's emphasis on silence can lead to a form of intellectual passivity or resignation, where important questions are avoided rather than addressed.

• Critic: John Searle, in his work "Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language," argues that Wittgenstein's emphasis on silence can be taken too far, leading to a form of philosophical quietism.

2. The Role of Language in Philosophy

Another criticism is that Wittgenstein's statement can be seen as undermining the role of language in philosophy. If certain questions cannot be spoken about, then what is the point of philosophy, which is traditionally seen as a discipline that seeks to clarify and understand the nature of reality through language?

• Critic: Bertrand Russell, in his review of the "Tractatus," argues that Wittgenstein's early work, with its emphasis on the limits of language, can lead to a form of philosophical skepticism that undermines the very enterprise of philosophy.

3. The Possibility of Private Language

Some philosophers have challenged Wittgenstein's private language argument, suggesting that it is possible to have a private language or that the argument is not as conclusive as Wittgenstein presents it.

• Critic: Saul Kripke, in his work "Naming and Necessity," argues that there are ways to understand the meaning of words that do not require public criteria, challenging Wittgenstein's claim that a private language is impossible.

Conclusion

Wittgenstein's statement "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" is a complex and multifaceted assertion that reflects his later philosophical views on the limits of language and the importance of understanding the conditions under which language can be meaningfully used. While the statement has been the subject of extensive debate and criticism, it remains a powerful reminder of the need to be mindful of the ways in which we use language and to be open to the nuances and complexities of our linguistic practices.

Wittgenstein's statement is a call for philosophical humility and a recognition of the limits of language. It is not a prescription for intellectual passivity but rather a reminder that meaningful understanding often requires a willingness to engage with the complexities of language use and to remain open to the possibilities and limitations of our linguistic practices. By remaining silent about certain topics, we can avoid the misuse of language and allow ourselves to be open to the richness and complexity of our linguistic experiences.

References

• Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell.
• Russell, B. (1922). Review of the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus." The Monist, 33(2), 119-124.
• Kripke, S. (1972). Naming and Necessity. Harvard University Press.
• Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.