Tsk tsk. All these people taking the statement at a constative, rather than performative level.

This self referential sentence is unproblematic; most are. Paradox only arises when a self-reference negates itself.

the limits of my language are the limits of my world? Has meaning been expressed adequately with "I love you more than words can say."? — Wallows

For there to be a limit, there must be that which is beyond the limit, and to speak of the limit is to point at 'whereof one cannot speak'. My world is limited, but my love surpasses the limit, as it surpasses myself. One speaks, obviously, within the limits of language. And at the limit, necessarily one points to what is beyond the limit, not always in the paradox of negation, but as a map of old had an area beyond the known and called it 'unexplored territory.' Words cannot tell what lies in unexplored territory, until we go and explore it.

This is the sentiment of young love. We oldies have explored a bit, and tend to say, "I love you like chips love salt, like shit loves a fan, like a war loves corpses, like a leopard loves spots", and so on. Knowing that it is both extravagant and inadequate.

Words cannot tell what lies in unexplored territory, until we go and explore it. — unenlightened

Oh I like that, it's poetry waiting to be written ... love, the unexplored territory, let's go explore it. Almost makes me feel young again, and, in my opinion it holds a lot more potential than the old cliché, "I love you more than words can say".

Oh I like that — Metaphysician Undercover

You might like it, or you might not. The old maps also used to say "Here be dragons".

Right, we don't agree then. Meaning is an individual mental event (or series of events). On my view, as something mental, it can't be made public/third-person observable.

Meaning is not the same as a definition. Meaning is a matter of thinking about things so that there's an associative connection.

You ruined the moment! When anything looks so good, there always has to be something bad hiding behind it. It's that duck-rabbit syndrome. The duck looks so happy and lovable, while the rabbit looks mean and ready to attack. Why did you show me the rabbit?

My apologies, but love hurts. You better head for the trauma thread for some therapy.

Words cannot tell what lies in unexplored territory, until we go and explore it. — unenlightened

But, we're talking about emotions and intent. Is this another case of having a huge giant beetle in a box, and saying that it is so awesome to have?

Tsk tsk. All these people taking the statement at a constative, rather than performative level. — StreetlightX

How does that alter its meaning?

Is this another case of having a huge giant beetle in a box, and saying that it is so awesome to have? — Wallows

I don't think so. Well I suppose if you declare the existence of dragons having not explored, then it is in a sense. But if you live the ongoing catastrophe that is marriage, you discover that love has little to do with your feelings, and is mainly about wiping other people's bottoms and other forms of taking pains.

I don't think so. — unenlightened

Well, I'm under the impression that the meaning in "I love you more than words can say." is extra-syntactic. The map is not the territory; but, I've already supposed that nothing in the territory is illustrative of how I feel about some person.

I've already supposed that nothing in the territory is illustrative of how I feel about some person. — Wallows

Oh. Then it's a beetle.

6.1k
Does the following sentence...:

"I love you more than words can say."

... express its meaning? — Wallows

If you really loved me more than words could say, you would say nothing, would you not? Since you attempted to quantify your love for me, I have to assume that you do not love with more than words can say. And after all I've done for you!

"I love you" is meaningful, "I will love you until the day I die" is meaningful. "I will love you as long as you are beautiful; after that, forget it" is meaningful. A bit too frank and honest, but meaningful. "I will love you forever" is highly doubtful, because you are not going to live forever, and even if you did, I don't expect to be around forever to check up on whether you are fulfilling your claim. Jesus can get away with saying "I am with you till the end of time" but he is a special case, since he exists in all times.

Sentences don't literally "express meaning," you assign meaning to them. — Terrapin Station

Terrapin, edible turtle, I am not altogether happy about your view that sentences don't literally "express meaning". Granted, we are reading abstract symbols grouped into words into sentences, and the symbols just sit there waiting for a reader, hearer, or clairvoyant. But the author picked particular words grouped into unique sentences. The author expressed something, and that something is carried in the sentence. Arbitrarily assigning meaning gets us... where?

Alright, then?

Cheers!

Love, and be silent.

Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave my heart into my mouth.

The author expressed something, and that something is carried in the sentence. Arbitrarily assigning meaning gets us... where? — Bitter Crank

The sentence is really just a set of marks on paper, or a computer screen, or sounds that someone is making, or hand movements, etc. We don't arbitrarily assign meaning, but the meaning isn't literally in the marks, sounds, motions, etc. The meaning is in our heads.

It doesn't. It just raises stupid non-problems mistaken for philosophical ones.

It doesn't. It just raises stupid non-problems mistaken for philosophical ones. — StreetlightX

But, if the sentence, "I love you more than words can say." is self-referential although indirectly, then it's a philosophical issue, no?

Only the naive and the philosophical think that 'I love you more than words can say' expresses a statement about the relationship between words and one's love. One actually has to dumb oneself down to treat it like that, as most in this thread seem to have done.

Only the naive and the philosophical think that 'I love you more than words can say' expresses a statement about the relationship between words and one's love. One actually has to dumb oneself down to treat it like that, as most in this thread seem to have done. — StreetlightX

Then if we could start with a clean slate, how would you have commented on the superficial problem that that sentence poses in your view?

I wouldn't.

I wouldn't. — StreetlightX

So, it's trifle irrelevancy? I hold the view that the sentence in mind has import towards the philosophy of language.

As an example of how not to conduct philosophy, perhaps.

As an example of how not to conduct philosophy, perhaps. — StreetlightX

But, @Banno thinks the sentence in question has something to tell us about how we use language.

Yes, Banno rightly cottons on to the statement as a performance, and dispenses, rightly, with the trash about the limits of language and paradoxes and self-reference and other miscellany.

I'll leave it at that then. I wonder what Banno thinks or if his views have changed since the old PF.

I wonder what Banno thinks or if his views have changed since the old PF. — Wallows

I hope it has.

I hope it has. — Banno

How so?

I don't know. I don't remember what I once thought. But you have access to the old thread? You tell me.

As if: "I love you to the moon and back" raises astro-engineering problems.