Perhaps it's the denizens of philosophy forums, as opposed to philosophers, who perform such wonders.It's not easy to talk about something that can't be expressed in words. Good luck. — jgill
Another is to treat "ineffable" as a second-order predicate, somewhat like existence, such that ascribing ineffability is not ascribing a property but saying something (what, exactly?) about those properties. — Banno
How long is a thread about what cannot be said? — Banno
The one apparently advocated by Wittgenstein was to simply remain silent about the ineffable
— Banno
Was it? Or was he warning that language is sometimes misused?
Was there an argument that shows that speech never falls short of expressing what we know? — frank
It's not easy to talk about something that can't be expressed in words. Good luck. — jgill
Perhaps it's the denizens of philosophy forums, as opposed to philosophers, who perform such wonders.
The problem with claiming that something is ineffable is, of course, the liar-paradox-like consequence that one has thereby said something about it. — Banno
Infinite. Isn't the ineffable, in its own way, the inspiration for these questions? — Moliere
A second possibility is simply to say that ascribing ineffability to something is to say that it has no referent. Another is to treat "ineffable" as a second-order predicate, somewhat like existence, such that ascribing ineffability is not ascribing a property but saying something (what, exactly?) about those properties. A fourth possibility is that to say that something is ineffable is to say that it can only be understood by listing the attributes that do not apply to it. Or it might be that the ineffable cannot be said, only experienced. Or perhaps it can only understood by metaphors. Or it might be an honorific, just a way of marking certain language as sacrosanct, or certain subjects as not available for further comment. — Banno
Some people might dub such an experience 'numinous' — Tom Storm
I can put the form of something into words even though I may not be able to put its content into words — RussellA
The ineffable can't be said, by definition -- but we reach all the same. I guess in reaching, the question is -- do we grasp what was there, or do we not? — Moliere
'numinous' - another delightfully ambiguous term which lacks linguistic and perhaps conceptual precision. — Tom Storm
Was there an argument that shows that speech never falls short of expressing what we know? — frank
are you trying to distill the semantic difference between “God”and “G-d” (written so as to not be effable) via analysis of ineffability? — javra
perhaps it can only understood by metaphors. — Banno
The one apparently advocated by Wittgenstein was to simply remain silent about the ineffable. — Banno
So if a person's reaction to a coffee-stimulus is of type (stimulus -> r), then the effect of coffee on that person is by definition implicitly included in the public definition of "coffee", in spite of the fact the public definition of coffee does not know about or explicitly include that person reaction — sime
The fact that people have a use for coffee means that the presence of coffee causes things to happen. However, coffee is not defined by what it may cause to happen, coffee is defined by what it is, a dark brown powder with a strong flavour. — RussellA
So in your opinion, 'dark brown' and 'strong' are observer independent properties of coffee that everyone can point at? — sime
Definitions don't need to be observer independent. For example, the Cambridge Dictionary defines beauty as "the quality of being pleasing, especially to look at, or someone or something that gives great pleasure, especially when you look at it"
I agree that one only knows that coffee has a strong flavour after drinking it, in that the drinker reacts to the taste of the coffee. But even so, is it still not the case that the coffee has a strong flavour, not that the coffee causes a strong flavour? The drinker of the coffee discovers a property of the coffee. — RussellA
Another of my (presumptively wise) beliefs is that where communication with others is concerned, art is the only means by which we may describe what we call the ineffable, however uncertainly. That would include poetry, but the use of words in poetry for that purpose is to imply, to suggest, to evoke. — Ciceronianus
If what we know is believed, justified and true, it is propositional, and hence statable. But can one put into words how one rides a bike or play guitar? Tacit knowledge is a candidate for the ineffable. — Banno
" coffee is not defined by what it may cause to happen, coffee is defined by what it is, a dark brown powder with a strong flavour."Coffee" doesn't mean that a person will act, the desire to drink coffee means that a person will act. — RussellA
Even if we could, that wouldn't convey to the naive how to ride or play. Some things you have to learn on your own. — frank
I subscribe to the notion that all language is metaphorical to the extent it can only to better or worse extents describe one's internal states to tell the listener what that internal state "is like" — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.