3 ms·

> Adding to it, there are things in life which are ineffable. This means they are (by definition), impossible to model or explain with words. Thus, these things

> Adding to it, there are things in life which are ineffable. This means they are (by definition), impossible to model or explain with words. Thus, these things will forever evade scientific scrutiny as science cannot deal with the ineffable. The concept of 'Ineffable things', is a very poetic way of describing something but it does not reflect reality. If a word exists to refer to something it is because is not ineffable. Let's take your example of love, for which you say is impossible to model or explain with words: Now, perhaps it is, if we are being pedantic and requiring a 100% concrete description of it where every one of its possible expressions are explained to the total satisfaction of every one every where every time. But that is not the bar we are aiming for, we are only aiming for it not being ineffable. As it happens, we can describe love at the very list in a vague sense, which is a lot more than no description at all. We can say for example that love is an emotion, we can say love is not hunger. Love is not the number 9. Love is related to affection, love is a feeling expressed by humans, among other creatures. Just in those few sentences we know a lot more about love than we did if we just accepted its condition as ineffable. In fact, we could spend days describing love, as many many poets already have, and while it is true we do not understand it completely, we do know what we are talking about when we say love enough to write millions of inspiring pages about it.

ta1234567890 7y ago
What you are saying is that because we have a map then we know the terrain. A description (in this case words), is not the actual thing. Using your example, we can spend days describing love and write millions of pages about it, but that is a very different thing than actually experiencing or feeling love. It is the experience that is ineffable, not the description of the experience. Additionally, we each assign meaning to our own experiences and language, even if we choose to agree with others about it. Funnily enough, there are people that have assigned meaning of love to the number 9 (you can lookup the song Love Potion No. 9, or Love Numerology). Accepting something as ineffable doesn't mean that you give up on it, it just means that it doesn't have a universal "true" meaning for everyone and that it cannot be fully understood unless it is experienced.
- MRAutumn 7y ago
  > What you are saying is that because we have a map then we know the terrain. No. What I'm saying is that having a map is better, way better than having nothing and resigning to even try because by definition is imposible to attain 100% of the terrain with the same level of detail as the real thing in a piece of paper that you can fold into your pocket. > This means they are (by definition), impossible to model or explain with words. > A description (in this case words), is not the actual thing. Using your example, we can spend days describing love and write millions of pages about it, but that is a very different thing than actually experiencing or feeling love. You started talking about describing something, now you want to switch to talking about "the thing". Obviously describing a thing is not the same as the real thing. Is your argument that the thing is ineffable or is it that the description is ineffable? > This means they are (by definition), impossible to model or explain with words. > it just means that it doesn't have a universal "true" meaning for everyone and that it cannot be fully understood unless it is experienced. So which is it? Or is the definition of ineffable too, ineffable?

ta1234567890 7y ago

What you are saying is that because we have a map then we know the terrain. A description (in this case words), is not the actual thing. Using your example, we can spend days describing love and write millions of pages about it, but that is a very different thing than actually experiencing or feeling love. It is the experience that is ineffable, not the description of the experience. Additionally, we each assign meaning to our own experiences and language, even if we choose to agree with others about it. Funnily enough, there are people that have assigned meaning of love to the number 9 (you can lookup the song Love Potion No. 9, or Love Numerology). Accepting something as ineffable doesn't mean that you give up on it, it just means that it doesn't have a universal "true" meaning for everyone and that it cannot be fully understood unless it is experienced.

MRAutumn 7y ago
> What you are saying is that because we have a map then we know the terrain. No. What I'm saying is that having a map is better, way better than having nothing and resigning to even try because by definition is imposible to attain 100% of the terrain with the same level of detail as the real thing in a piece of paper that you can fold into your pocket. > This means they are (by definition), impossible to model or explain with words. > A description (in this case words), is not the actual thing. Using your example, we can spend days describing love and write millions of pages about it, but that is a very different thing than actually experiencing or feeling love. You started talking about describing something, now you want to switch to talking about "the thing". Obviously describing a thing is not the same as the real thing. Is your argument that the thing is ineffable or is it that the description is ineffable? > This means they are (by definition), impossible to model or explain with words. > it just means that it doesn't have a universal "true" meaning for everyone and that it cannot be fully understood unless it is experienced. So which is it? Or is the definition of ineffable too, ineffable?