My belief is that he was telling philosophers to remain silent about it. If only they would. He was too clever to think that the clergy or theologians would stop their hooting and honking. — Ciceronianus
Sure, at some point the talk stops and one is left to act.Can one put into words the way in which one knows something as believe, justified and true, that is, the tacit sense of its truth? — Joshs
So the public definition of whiteness as a continuation isn't in contradiction with the subjective 'private language' use-cases of whiteness by each speaker of the linguistic community, but accommodates them in the same way that it accommodates the objective physical definition of 'whiteness' in terms of the physical responses of optical estimators,. — sime
have three related words. The ineffable, about which we can say nothing, and which as a result can not enter into our explicit considerations; ↪Tom Storm's numinous, to which we can no more than nod, and perhaps the sacred, which remains undiscussed. — Banno
I'd define the ineffable as that which we cannot say everything about... — Hanover
I think your definition of sacred is off. — Hanover
What something ‘is’ defines a use — Joshs
Continuations obviously aren't the whole story, nor even necessarily part of the story for there are problems, but they seem useful in conveying the open-ended, counterfactual and inferential semantics of terms as well as accommodating the differing perspectival semantics of individual speakers. — sime
However, when I see "white" light, I may in fact have the private subjective experience of the colour red, and you may have the private subjective experience of the colour green. We will never know, as it is impossible for me to put my private subjective experience into words, as it is impossible for anyone to put their private subjective experience into words. — RussellA
sometimes, we do know the private, subjective experience of others — Moliere
Perhaps the answer has to be that there is not anything about which we cannot talk. — Banno
Even for voluble verbose philosophers, the concept of Holism seems to be inherently ineffable, in the sense that a complex whole system cannot be understood when "delineated" in terms of its parts, without losing the integrated wholeness. An old high school biology example says that "if you dissect a frog, you lose the interrelating & binding effect of Life, which defines the essence of a frog. A dissected frog is no longer a functioning organism : it's "-ology" without the "bio-". So you learn about organs apart from the organism. Hence, you can't have your frog, and cut it too.Indeed, I've much sympathy with that. The further question might be what it is that they ought be quite about, and that, if anything, is the topic of this thread: delineating, so far as it is possible to do so, what it is that is ineffable. — Banno
I don't see that there is a necessary link between what something "is" and any use that something may have, in that something may exist and yet have no use.
A stone is defined as a "hard solid non-metallic mineral matter". Stone may be used as a building material, but even if it isn't, it still remains a stone. — RussellA
it could also be said that "actions are words", in which case putting our private subjective experiences into actions is a form of language, and therefore not ineffable — RussellA
"Some things you have to learn on your own" looks like it is about an ineffable entity we might call "knowing how to ride a bike", but there is no difference between "knowing how to ride a bike" and "riding a bike"; we don't have two things here, one being bike riding and the other being knowing how to ride a bike. — Banno
Or, suppose we had a list of the instructions for riding a bike, to whatever detail we desire. Would we then know how to ride a bike? Well, no. So what is missing? Just, and only, the riding of the bike. But that's not something it makes sense to add to the list! — Banno
What is there that cannot be said? — Banno
"...it hardly conveys the full experience" - of course not! That has to be experienced! — Banno
But as suggested to Frank, that just means that it is not something to be said, but something to be done. — Banno
This by way of complicating the notion of "experience" as counting as ineffable. — Moliere
Every use of the word stone provides us with a different sense of meaning of ‘stone’. — Joshs
Actions constitute much of what is ineffable. — jgill
That is, "Some things you have to learn on your own" looks like it is about an ineffable entity we might call "knowing how to ride a bike", but there is no difference between "knowing how to ride a bike" and "riding a bike"; we don't have two things here, one being bike riding and the other being knowing how to ride a bike. — Banno
And if this is right, then there is nothing here that is ineffable. Or if you prefer, what appeared to be the ineffable bit is just the doing, the getting on the bike and riding it. — Banno
If every different use of a stone gave us a different meaning of stone, then there would be an uncountable number of definitions of "stone"
I'm with Banno who wrote "Nowadays a property is considered essential if and only if it belongs to the individual in question in every possible world." — RussellA
I can't see how that might work. What is there that cannot be said? "...it hardly conveys the full experience" - of course not! That has to be experienced! But as suggested to Frank, that just means that it is not something to be said, but something to be done. It's not a something that remains unsaid! — Banno
And I’m with the later Wittgenstein , who argues that there is no such thing as a word outside of some particular use; for a word to be is for a word to be used, and word use is always situational, contextual and personal — Joshs
It must be the case that identical form has identical content, such that the proposition A "the bird is blue" has the same content as proposition B "the bird is blue". — RussellA
If the meaning of a word changed with context, language would have no foundation, and there would be the problem of circularity. I wouldn't know what a word meant if I didn't know the context, and I wouldn't know the context unless I knew the meaning of the word.
A stone may be used as a hammer. A stone may be used as a door stop. The meaning of "stone" is independent of any use it is put to. A stone being used as a hammer means that the nail will be driven into the wood. A stone being used as a door stop means that the door will remain open.
The way that the word is being used has a meaning and changes with context. The meaning of the word doesn't change with context. — RussellA
My notion of "essence" (e.g. of frogginess) is based on Aristotle's definition of "substance". Biologists may think of substance as material properties (the frog's physical body), but naturalists & philosophers tend to include such qualities as behavior, to define "frogginess" : definitive features that frogs have in common with each other. So the essence of Frog is more than physiology. It includes instincts & mental factors that differentiate a frog from a lizard. "Properties" are known via the physical senses. But "qualities" are known via rational inference. Pragmatic scientists necessarily focus on effable Properties, But theoretical Philosophers are more concerned with ineffable Qualities. :smile:↪Gnomon
A dead frog is not a frog? That is, not sure about your notion of essence. Nowadays a property is considered essential if and only if it belongs to the individual in question in every possible world.You seem to be using some other notion... — Banno
context is independent of whatever meaning a word may have. If I walked into a Parisian cafe and said "jiwe" I may get strange looks. If I said "jiwe" in a language class I might get top marks. — RussellA
If the meaning of a word changed with context, language would have no foundation, and there would be the problem of circularity. I wouldn't know what a word meant if I didn't know the context, and I wouldn't know the context unless I knew the meaning of the word. — RussellA
Human form B does not need to express their private subjective experiences in words for me to have an almost absolute belief that their private subjective experiences are the same as mine. — RussellA
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.