Will a wink suffice? How about a photograph or a song?

Edit: Language is fascinating, of course. However, I find the underlying mental layers that support it to be equally fascinating, if not more so.

Are they claims about the world or just expressions?

What's the difference?

A wink is just an expression we call a wink. We can then analyze what a wink it philosophically and make claims about it. So one is the experienced phenomena the other is inquiring about that phenoma.

Can't it be argued that the expression itself is a claim about the state of the world (= "the thing I just said was in jest").

It can but then you are back to subjective interpretation.

You can wink, that wink can have meaning or it's just a wink or you got something in your eye. How do you determine what it is without having used language somehow to establish what a wink could mean? And that's just on the surface of the amgiguity.

You agreeing with him or not has nothing to do with ‘the limits of his world’.

It’s almost as though you don’t understand what he is talking about.

I understand what he is saying in fact I am the same way. Many of my thoughts are non-verbal.

But the second they get expressed into language, philosophical analysis kicks in.

You can't express truth though but you can be it (i.e. you can wink)

Philosophical analysis kicks in when someone chooses to do it and at no other time.

Language simply isn’t the limit of anyone’s world.

It’s also plainly obvious that humans have access to many other ways of expressing themselves and communicating other than language, and some truth can certainly be expressed.

I am not sure what your point is.

The second you start claiming things about how the world is through language I can access that and analyze it through ex. a postmodern lens.

You can certainly experience all sorts of things that is beyond language to express but then they are that personal experiences and highly subjective.

What Objective truth can be expressed through language? If you knew the answer to that one you would win a Nobel price and I would certainly do whatever in my power to make sure you got it cause that would be a big deal and fundamentally change EVERYTHING.

Which is why no one has taken me up on the offer to formulate such a truth. It's simply not a useful way to think about what language expresses.

I know you aren’t sure what my point is. That’s because you think your world is limited by language.

And now you’re suddenly focussed on ‘objective truth’. Moving the goalposts because it’s obvious that truth can be expressed through means other than language.

Why not just admit that language is limited but it’s not the limit of our world, or our expression? Why is that so hard?

No its not limited by that, philosphy is. Perhaps you should read a little up on postmodern theory then you would better understand the context this is debated within. You can imagine what you want that has nothing to do with what we are debating here.

"The limits of my language means the limits of my world."

Is what this subthread is about.

Perhaps you should read what the people you are replying to are commenting on. Then you’ll understand the context.

I am reading it and I am replying to it. Perhaps you should let people themselves comment rather than pretend you are the judge.

I clarified the context because you decided to declare what the context was. Perhaps you’ve forgotten that. The advice about pretending to be the judge of the context seems like something you might have wanted to consider for yourself.

If you’re replying to the comment I quoted, then my points clearly stand. Language is not the limit of anyone’s world unless they decide to limit themselves that way.

And I repeat that you continue to miss the point of philosophy and are confusing means of expression with means of claiming. It has nothing to do with whether language is the limit of anyone's world we are talking about philosophy here that's the context that's what I was responding to before you started this useless diatribe. Have a great Saturday.

You’re going to pretend that this thread of the conversation doesn’t stem from that statement when it is plain to see?

Magnificent philosophy.