I think all of our knowledge fits into this category. When we are very young, we are very limited in our understanding of the meaning of words, the content of words surpasses our understanding. Eventually we reach a point of "average comprehension," where in most contexts our understanding of the meaning of words lines up with that of our fellows.

But if we continue to study and develop, usually what happens is we begin to focus in more on certain specialized subjects. Then our understanding can begin to grow vertically beyond the sedimented historic meanings of words and begin to encapsulate expanded meanings, based on whatever frameworks of investigation and validation.

But there is more than that. We can also expand our understanding horizontally, covering a wider array of subjects and contexts. And this is the process wherein we encounter most the limitations of language. Or, I'd rather say, where intuitive apprehensions of connections surpass or supersede sedimented meaning. What kind of light does quantum physics shed on evolution? Or what does early twentieth century intellectualism teach us about social democracy?

Even further than that. The longer we live, the more opportunity we have to observe what I'd call "very long term consequences" of our habits of thought. Things that simply cannot be "reasoned out" in an hour, or a day, or even a year. Because they are the results of many different kinds of efforts, in many different dimensions of life.

So, yes, in the largest sense, I think words are only ever approximations. I think the closer we look at life, the more we come to understand exactly how much of it really is "ineffable" as you say.

Language is like paint, and there are good paint jobs and bad paint jobs, and the right paint and the wrong paint. Done very well, the painting may look a lot like the world - but it never is. And on the functional side, as with painting a boat or a house, sooner or later it always needs to be redone. in application, it's put on and spread around until the thing is deemed adequately covered, but that often a matter of contention.

The contradictory even paradoxical aspect of language is caught in this well-known observation.

Ars Poetica
BY ARCHIBALD MACLEISH

A poem should be palpable and mute
As a globed fruit,

Dumb
As old medallions to the thumb,

Silent as the sleeve-worn stone
Of casement ledges where the moss has grown—

A poem should be wordless
As the flight of birds.

*

A poem should be motionless in time
As the moon climbs,

Leaving, as the moon releases
Twig by twig the night-entangled trees,

Leaving, as the moon behind the winter leaves,
Memory by memory the mind—

A poem should be motionless in time
As the moon climbs.

*

A poem should be equal to:
Not true.

For all the history of grief
An empty doorway and a maple leaf.

For love
The leaning grasses and two lights above the sea—

A poem should not mean
But be.

2. The experience of going to a museum with a friend and see the same paint. For example, Saturn eating his own sons by Goya (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturno_devorando_a_su_hijo)

As you explained previously, language is very important for not only communicate with others but for understanding all the stimulus perceive for us.
When we are experiencing some ineffable feelings as a paint it is important our background in terms of culture vocabulary. Probably for someone, when they see Saturn eating his own sons would think is scary or even horrendous so the vocabulary and then language could be "basic". But if we are someone who loves art and general culture we would give it another perception explained it with different words.
I do not want say here one is better than other. I want to explain that the own criteria in culture will affect the language and its vocabulary.
Then, and it is just my guess, only those who wants to improve their knowledge could have in the long run more chances to avoid "ineffable" but beautiful things as paint, art, music, sculptures, etc... Isn't it the beauty of language?

I sense a paradox here. It would be rather difficult if not impossible to use language to comment on its own limitations. Isn't that like asking a person who's given a faulty weighing scale i.e. it doesn't measure weight accurately and then asking fae to come up with a detailed report of how inaccurate the weighing scale give him is using only that weighing scale? A mouthful, I know. Sorry, my English ain't so great but it does sound very Zen! It should be Koan for Zen Buddhists who are linguists.

Perhaps, one of the problems is if thoughts which are expressed in language are taken too concretely when they are only representations. Art is another form of representation and part of the role of art therapy is because it gives another way of expression, without words. Music, without lyrics, of course, is another medium. Some people are more verbal than others and it seems likely that philosophers are probably more verbal in the way that they process experience. But, ultimately, surely language can only be a way of constructing models of experience or reality.

...good stuff all, keep them coming please!!!!

Not to single any one out, however said something that reminded me of Keats: "Truth is beauty, beauty truth; that's all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."


Philosophically, that almost begs the question of Voluntarism; the Will v. the Intellect. Take for example the law of attraction and/or the power of words and affirmation. Say one tells oneself that they are going to be 'successful', they repeat it continuously, then seemingly it comes into existence for them.

But do they have to tell themselves that first, or is it a secondary apperception of language? I agree with the sentiments about the paradoxical nature of this problem. Let's say I'm sad about something, Am I sad because my logic of his or her word formulations are making me sad, or is there an existential angst (my will) that preceeds the intellect thus making it so?

Even if by considering Keats, we can receive or even associate feelings of joy (in this case) with Truth, how does our feelings of truth manifest? Language only? Is our truth ours and ours only? What is Truth?

Say I'm an engineer and design an award winning novel structure through the language of mathematics, how should I feel about that? It seems like that particular (engineer's) language conveys a purpose or meaning.

It seems as though, we should add into the database here, that the logic of language may just be a means to an end... (?)

Since we human's like to dichotomize things, does the logic of language come before feeling, or does feeling come first? Do words invoke feelings, or do feelings invoke words?

he sentiments about the paradoxical nature of this problem. Let's say I'm sad about something, Am I sad because my logic of his or her word formulations are making me sad, or is there an existential angst (my will) that proceeds the intellect thus making it so?

Even if by considering Keats, we can receive or even associate feelings of joy (in this case) with Truth, how does our feelings of truth manifest? Language only? Is our truth ours and ours only? What is Truth?

Say I'm an engineer and design an award winning novel structure through the language of mathematics, how should I feel about that? It seems like that particular (engineer's) language conveys a purpose or meaning.

It seems as though, we should add into the database here, that the logic of language may just be a means to an end... (?)

Since we human's like to dichotomize things, does the logic of language come before feeling, or does feeling come first? Do words invoke feelings, or do feelings invoke words? — 3017amen

These wouldn't be limitations of language because language can't be used to discover its own limitations.

I don't see why we can't use language to remark on the limitations of our language. That would seem like saying we can't use our minds to think about our own mental limitations.

I'm not sure what you're asking. If something's ineffable, it can't be described in words. Are you asking for a description of the experience of listening to music? Then I think one can't be given. Are you asking if we think the experience of listening to music can't be described in words? Then, yes, that's what I think.

Even if by considering Keats, we can receive or even associate feelings of joy (in this case) with Truth, how does our feelings of truth manifest? Language only? Is our truth ours and ours only? What is Truth? — 3017amen

Interesting quotes about Keats. Something complex as truth is just another example which fits in this debate. It is an abstract concept that somehow could be "ineffable". Feelings of truth will manifest in reality depending on the human behavior we are speaking about.
Then, literally only exists our truth and the way we express. Some will accept it others will not. But I think here is not important about other but you. The human himself creating a world with the "reality" and truth he is experiencing.
Also, I don't know if we are able to express truth just with language. I guess here is important the art of evidence and theorizing. For example: I can tell to you is impossible go to the Sun because their high temperature would kill us. Here you can say it is just words despite it is true we cannot travel to the Sun. Then, I decide create a robot which can at least take photo near of the Sun orbit. Later on, I show you the evidence why the Sun could kill us.
It is true that here I use a lot of evidences but it started with just words. What if language is the root of everything we ever discovered?

There's a question, as to what degree words "carve nature at the joints" to quote Plato - from Phaedrus, but I think the inadequacy of language to reality would become obvious very quickly, and that language - either the signifier or signified, adapt by usage - to the reality - insofar as the reality is understood.

Words don't have one time definitive meanings. Take the prefix "meta" - the original Greek meaning was 'after.' In English it came to refer to something self-referential, but modern day usage is adapting the term further - to refer now to a higher level of abstraction.

Consequently, I'm inclined to the view that language, like water, shapes itself to the vessel it is in.

'Everything I say is a lie', which if true is false, and if false is true .i] — 3017amen

Within everything exist everything, so the paradox of the above statement is present in all statements if we allow ourselves to realize it.

For example, consider the statement, "The boy has the blue balloon." If there is no visible light present, does the boy still have the balloon? Is it still blue?

Language (in its clumsy manner) is chasing an event (or thought) that never really existed (it was never available to our limited intellect). It's an approximation of an approximation which is why keeping one's mouth shut is almost always the best course of action in this life.

These wouldn't be limitations of language because language can't be used to discover its own limitations.

don't see why we can't use language to remark on the limitations of our language. That would seem like saying we can't use our minds to think about our own mental limitations. — Jack Cummins

Wow, keep them coming all... .

TMF & JC: I think you're both right. Meaning, if TMF is describing the limitations of logic synonymous with, say, Kantian things-in-themselves, then yes I believe he is right. In that sense, we are left with a sort of Kantian phenomenology associated with language and the limitations thereto.

At the same time, JC points out the paradoxical nature of a double negative, to name a few issues. For instance, if we are saying we can't use the mind to understand the mind itself (the nature of its existence), we are left with an interesting paradox... .

While we can use our mind to think about these issues of self-awareness, it seems we are doomed to failure when confronting the nature of its own existence. In those quick examples, we can describe things, but not fully explain things.

I'm not sure what you're asking. If something's ineffable, it can't be described in words. Are you asking for a description of the experience of listening to music? Then I think one can't be given. Are you asking if we think the experience of listening to music can't be described in words? Then, yes, that's what I think. — Ciceronianus the White

CW!

Okay, I was just trying to confirm... . In other words, if something is ineffable, does that mean, in your mind, that there is no other way to use language to convey a meaningful response?

For example, say a musician is playing his/her instrument and 'trading bars' with another musician by spontaneous improvisation, or and engineer is reviewing another engineer's design calculations. In those instances, one would think that even those things which are ineffable, do require an understanding of a different language. In this case, it's musical language and engineering language.

Of course, we could also say that in theoretical physics/cosmology, that although like the engineer, the language of mathematics' tend to rule the day, it's quite conceivable that a whole other language might be necessary to explain the origins of same (the universe).

And so to your pointed questions, I agree that we are seemingly, once again, doomed to failure here... .

I don't see why we can't use language to remark on the limitations of our language. That would seem like saying we can't use our minds to think about our own mental limitations. — Jack Cummins

The tao that can be spoken is not the eternal tao.

That is using language to describe the ineffable. Moreover, the more deeply contextualized the reference, the more the ineffable is "caught".

It's not impossible, it just requires careful execution.

It probably depends on how one considers the idea of the ineffable. Is it beyond words at all, or just beyond a certain person's ability to articulate? Also, when someone says that they can't put some aspect of experience into words, perhaps they can push themselves further to find the words. The words may be descriptive rather than explanation, but the description may be the starting point for further enquiry, including some kind of grasp for explanation.

It probably depends on how one considers the idea of the ineffable. Is it beyond words at all, or just beyond a certain person's ability to articulate? Also, when someone says that they can't put some aspect of experience into words, perhaps they can push themselves further to find the words. The words may be descriptive rather than explanation, but the description may be the starting point for further enquiry, including some kind of grasp for explanation. — Jack Cummins

:up:

I spent 4 hours over the last two days trying to decipher why the Western interpretation of being versus thinking was irremediably damaged by a misinterpretation of Parmenides and thus the loss of an "originary meaning" that somehow synthesized being and thinking through the concepts of polemos and logos in a kind of proto-dialectical process. Nothing is really ineffable, just...difficult. Or maybe challenging is a better way to put it.

Do you think that it depends on one's focus, as well? I think that it does, because on some days my thinking seems clearer. In understanding others writings, I find that I try to read something quickly and, then once again, more slowly. I have never done translation to know that process and, of course, it is not always clear if the way one interprets is exactly what the person who was writing had in mind. However, that probably needs one to be able to enter into the private universe of the writer, and we can only do that in our imaginary way.

I have hardly read any Parmenides, but I am inclined to think that the further removed from ordinary language that thinkers go, this is more inclined to mystify understanding. This seems to happen more within philosophical writing, where the abstract is often given preference. In literature, including poetry and fiction, even when there is emphasis on the symbolic, the descriptive has some link with the senses. When we are confronted with what appears to be ineffable, Ì believe that the starting point may be looking at one's experience, including the sensory, through mindful awareness and this may offer a gateway towards using language to understand what appears to be mysterious.

Interesting quotes about Keats. Something complex as truth is just another example which fits in this debate. It is an abstract concept that somehow could be "ineffable". Feelings of truth will manifest in reality depending on the human behavior we are speaking about.
Then, literally only exists our truth and the way we express. Some will accept it others will not. But I think here is not important about other but you. The human himself creating a world with the "reality" and truth he is experiencing. — javi2541997

Javi!

Interesting. Is it safe to assume we are talking about Subjective and Objective truth's? Perhaps one can think of their own sentience as their own unique language onto themselves, nevertheless, their own subjective truth... ?

What if language is the root of everything we ever discovered? — javi2541997

If you mean that the logic of language precedes the will, that could have interesting implications. For instance, one would have to acquiesce to words taking on an exclusive role in our behavior; how we act and our quality of life needs. That in turn has all sorts of implications relative to our human condition, be it socio-political or anything else...interesting… .

I'm thinking we would simply not be able to react to a stimulus that say's...' I don't like what he/she just said, so therefore I'm going to respond (using language of course) in like manner... '. We would be denying our own Will, or at least our intuition, etc. I think... .

I have hardly read any Parmenides, but I am inclined to think that the further removed from ordinary language that thinkers go, this is more inclined to mystify understanding. This seems to happen more within philosophical writing, where the abstract is often given preference. In literature, including poetry and fiction, even when there is emphasis on the symbolic, the descriptive has some link with the senses. — Jack Cummins

This is Heidegger's evaluation of Parmenides, and he absolutely grounds this originary grasp of meta-phusis in the poetic too. You have to really take it slow. At least I do.

I absolutely think there is an element of focus to it. I have spent considerable time trying to define and quantify exactly what constitutes "cognitive effort"....

Is language honest?

Is there something you mean but cannot say, or does it just feel as if there is?

If you cannot say it, how can you mean it?

Interesting. Is it safe to assume we are talking about Subjective and Objective truth's? Perhaps one can think of their own sentience as their own unique language onto themselves, nevertheless, their own subjective truth... ? — 3017amen

I think yes. Probably out here there is only one truth in the end of the day. We can call it tangible world (for example) that show us to how truly is, without any kind of interpretation. Nevertheless, humans tend to be so abstract because we are capable of living in two worlds: tangible and abstract (or ideas) because our amazing knowledge provides us this skill. Using the ideas we were creating a lot of important things along our existence. But these are free interpretation. Every person, itself, will has their own language but the same reality. Some would agree in a same point, others probably don't but it is still good because there is nothing bad about seeing and speaking the same reality with different language.

I'm thinking we would simply not be able to react to a stimulus that say's...' I don't like what he/she just said, so therefore I'm going to respond (using language of course) in like manner... '. We would be denying our own Will, or at least our intuition, etc. I think... . — 3017amen

Interesting thesis. I guess with this implication everything would be easier because we would be capable of using vocabulary in the most objective way and then avoiding all interference. This, our subjective vocabulary. But this would be hard because humans love to have ideas and be abstract along their lives.

"The Truth" has two aspects: (A) map =|= territory [informative, useful] & (B) "100% complete" map = territory [uninformative, useless as a map] wherein "map" is synonymous with "representation" (which can convey a truth-value) and "territory" is synonymous with "matters of fact" (which cannot convey a truth-value). To wit: the only perfect representation of matters of fact are the matters of fact themselves (i.e. vanishing of "truth").

FYI: I've no idea what is nattering on about in the OP.

To be frank, language does have the capability of self-reference. It just commented about itself in the preceding sentence. Your post and replies to them are also instances of self-reference i.e. language talking about itself. I suppose grammar wouldn't be possible without this ability.

You mentioned Ineffability and if you follow the link, you'll be lead to a page which discusses the issue but if you notice the focus is on religion and religious experiences. A quote for you:

An example (of ineffability) is the name of God in Judaism, written as YHWH but substituted with Adonai ("the Lord") or HaShem ("the name") when reading. — Wikipedia

It's something right up your alley I suppose 3017amen.

Anyway, that the most obvious example of an ineffable is religious in character is telling, don't you think? What's the nexus between religion and ineffability and by extension language? There's the tower of babel, a legend about how god sowed the seeds of confusion among people by making languages mutually unintelligible which suggests that language is a powerful tool at least when it comes cooperation, capable of even god-level feats. Why else would god go through all the trouble of confusing us? On the flip side, we have the divine itself as ineffable, HaShem. Thus we have two ideas about language: one, as a very powerful tool, capable of grasping the divine and thus the tower of babel and two, as not-powerful enough to comprehend the divine. What gives? I think this is tangential to the OP though but it makes zero sense insofar as the link between language and the divine (ineffable) is concerned.

I will start with 'ineffable' experiences that one might have.

1. The experience of listening to music. — 3017amen

...but there isn't an experience of listening to music.

Listening to Jimi Hendrix is not the same experience as listening to Brahms. Listening to Jimi while cruising a highway is not the same experience as listening to Jimi while trying to solve a difficult puzzle.

Further, it's tempting to think there is something you mean, but you can't quite find the words... but if you cannot say it, how can you mean it?

With de ja vu, it feels as if this has happened before; but it hasn't. Why shouldn't it feel as if you want to express something but cannot find the words... and yet there is nothing actually there that could be expressed? Why suppose that language is inadequate, when it might just be that you have nothing to say.

"matters of fact" (which cannot convey a truth-value). — 180 Proof

Can you briefly tell me why that is?

"The authentic interpretation must show what does not stand there in the words and which is nevertheless said....What is authentic is to be sought where nothing further can be found by scientific exegesis, which brands as unscientific everything that exceeds its domain."
(Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics)

Heidegger's take on "the ineffable"....

I sometimes think that the way religious and mystical writers speak of the 'ineffable' to be some lack of willingness to explore further. I am not sure if it is because they prefer to keep their thinking fuzzy. Obviously, each writer has an individual psychology, but I do think that the mystifying is language is a real problem in philosophy for the dialogue between science and religion, because writers from the two perspectives choose to use language in such different ways.

I think that this is particularly apparent in the philosophy of mind. The scientists often speak in the language of neuroscience and the religious speak of the soul. It seems to me that the idea of the soul seems to mystify the question of mind, while the neuroscientists seem to be talking in reductive terms. This is a matter which involves explanations, but I do wonder if the root of the differences really is about the whole way in which language is used to speak, with a possibility of too much mystification, or, alternatively a wish to remove any hint of mystery completely.