11 ms·

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, w

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?

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?