How long is a thread about what cannot be said? — Banno
↪Banno
I'll bet you are! As you should be- 30 pages on the ineffable is a solid showing! — busycuttingcrap
Or are you telling me that after 30 pages you guys still don't have it sorted out? — busycuttingcrap
I don't believe that what can only be shown, not said, is effable, because I understand the word to denote that which can be clearly explained. — Janus
Think of a culinary recipe, for example. If it is exhaustively set out and followed rigorously, results are guaranteed. To my way of thinking that would be an example of effability. No such definite instructions can be given for how to paint a picture, compose a musical piece or write a poem, because the requirement there is analogous to creating your own unique culinary dish.
Don't look at me. I tried to discourage the reams of babble that emerged early on, to no avail. — jgill
Because it gets to the intent of the post, without the "knowing" that confused the issue
— Banno
Okay, so what was the original intent if it wasn't about knowledge? — Luke
Do we talk about them? Or do they drop out of the conversation as irrelevant? — Luke
Exactly. Somehow sensations are supposed to occupy some middle (@Moliere) ground, private, ineffable, yet the foundation of our understanding (@Constance).
You clever folk all agree, but can't explain it. I call bullshit.
— Banno
You said that we do talk about sensations. However, Wittgenstein says of his beetle that "The thing in the box doesn’t belong to the language-game at all". If the beetle in the box represents sensations (as Richard B suggests here), then it seems like you are advocating both positions? — Luke
Or are you telling me that after 30 pages you guys still don't have it sorted out? :wink: — busycuttingcrap
Don't look at me. I tried to discourage the reams of babble that emerged early on, to no avail. — jgill
Do you intend to address these questions, Banno? — Luke
We do talk about the aroma of coffee.
— Banno
Yes, we do. We also talk about swimming like fish, flying like birds, going to the ends of the Earth. — Mww
I don't agree that your counter-instance works. — Banno
the aroma of coffee not being reducible to chemistry, it is caused by chemistry. — Banno
two different ways of talking about the same thing. Not unlike the piece of paper being a dollar bill. — Banno
I tried to discourage the reams of babble that emerged early on, to no avail. — jgill
Truth is bound to language. And if the mystical is not true, because it is outside of language, in what way can we claim that it is reasonable? — Moliere
But if one is seeking the mystical, to be unbound by language, then I think that's likely when we've hit the boundary of philosophy. (also, something funny here -- when mystics disagree) — Moliere
Rather, given I don't even have institutional ambitions, philosophy is more personal, social, and connective. It is something done for pleasure, rather than a competition. — Moliere
I think the differences are institutional, and what's more what is institutionalized are aesthetics of reason. Aesthetics are a necessary component to human judgment, and certainly needed to teach human judgment -- but are they true? Are they the sorts of things which lead us to say, this is the one way to do philosophy? I think not. — Moliere
So what if God actually appeared before me and intimated HER eternal grandeur and power? Language does not prohibit this — Constance
They rest on intuitions about logic — Constance
As an empiricist philosopher, Quine was bound to a scientific consensus — Constance
And again, ALL we ever encounter in the world, is phenomena. — Constance
All inquiry ABOUT these claims leads to indeterminacy. — Constance
In that light, I'd say that neither materialism nor phenomenology are terms worth fighting over, because only people educated in this stuff would really get something out of the distinction, — Moliere
Husserl is one I've read selections from -- I have a reader I've read but I haven't done the deep work. So, yes I've read parts, but no I haven't read it all. He's someone I need to, but he's still far enough away from present interests that I've sorta just kept him there — Moliere
The mystical cannot be true or false because this is a feature of propositions, not states of mind or existential encounters. It is what is said about these that can be true or false. So what if God actually appeared before me and intimated HER eternal grandeur and power? — Constance
Language does not prohibit this; it is the content of language that prohibits this, that is, what is familiar and usual. Language is entirely open and even the Wittgensteinian Tractatusian prohibitions are not categorical. They rest on intuitions about logic, and these are, in Heidegger's terms, taking up the world AS: When logic speaks of logic's own delimitations, this is an imposition that occurs within the finitude of logic's application. — Constance
I do disagree here: Philosophy does have its grounding, which is firmly there before inquiry. — Constance
Hmmm, true. But just because it is not a popular issue doesn't help here. All that we know and accept as true was once not popular. — Constance
You know, it really does take the reading. Consider that empirical science was there at the beginning of our acculturation and we were, in those early years, exposed to nothing but, through high school and beyond. — Constance
Language does not prohibit hallucinations either. — Richard B
So if p then q, p, therefore q is based on intuition. I don’t think we are using “intuition” correctly. — Richard B
No, I would say he was bound by the success of make predictions of future stimuli. — Richard B
This is incorrect, we encounter trees, apples, humans. Also, it does not make sense to say ALL we ever encounter in the phenomena, is phenomena. — Richard B
In science, there is a certain inaccuracy with measurements. Is this a concern? Should it impede progress? No, they march forward. They apply the measurement, where there is practical gain, and live with the uncertainty, or strive to improve. Some philosophers could learn from this example. — Richard B
We talk about this, we talk about that. We talk about all sorts of stuff, some of it eccentrically. Which is just another word for irrationally. What about that doesn’t work? — Mww
I agree sensations are entirely ineffable. — Mww
and my reply to , repeating a point made on page one:we cannot say objects — Moliere
We can't put the tree or the smell or the bike ride or 's olympic diver into words. they are things in the world, not sentences. If you like, call them ineffable, but don't make the mistake of thinking that we can't therefor talk about them. We can, and we do."Suppose someone had a list of the instructions for riding a bike, to whatever detail we desire. Would they then be a bike rider? Well, no. So what is missing? Just, and only, the riding of the bike." — Banno
So, yes -- it's an interesting case, but I think creativity can be taught. An uncreative person can be shown how to be creative. Or, at least, more creative than they were. So, we probably couldn't come up with a regimen which will be guaranteed to develop a Picasso, but we can teach people to be creative in the art for all that. — Moliere
My skepticism in such things is based in experience -- hence my doubts about phenomenology leading one to God, but rather, from my story, it leads one to nature. — Moliere
Having been an art student myself and having been involved in the arts for many years, I find myself disagreeing with this. — Janus
Personally, I find it incredible that some (not you, Moliere) want to deny that there is any aspect of private experience which cannot be made public, and seem to have some weird, politically correct fetish for making everything public,and insisting on their dogmatic, and even worse insuufferably boring, version of correctness in all matters philosophical, which to me is objectionable and raises the horrible spectre of Groupthink and universal ennui. — Janus
I think it's more a matter of trying to figure it out philosophically than anything. — Moliere
...we need is a few more pages.. — busycuttingcrap
You can lead a horse to water, but if they don't want to drink they won't.
That's true of teaching any subject, though. Students will be students, in the end. — Moliere
I think it's more a matter of trying to figure it out philosophically than anything. The demands of reason, and such. Maybe there's something private, but it might be outside the bounds of philosophy at that point. Also, given that philosophy seeks agreement -- at least I think it does, else why talk at all when you could just live? -- those are the sorts of appeals one makes in looking for agreement, or at least understanding. — Moliere
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.