• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Limits of Language

devildavid said:
So we use language to express that we can't use language?
Click to expand...
What other means are there? Let's see, there's art, music, mathematics. Language seems intuitively to be the means of choice, don't you think?
One could say with some cogency that art and music, in the right hands, might express the ineffable.
Mathematics, of course, might express the Mind of God.

What say you?
 
Angel said:
What other means are there? Let's see, there's art, music, mathematics. Language seems intuitively to be the means of choice, don't you think?
One could say with some cogency that art and music, in the right hands, might express the ineffable.
Mathematics, of course, might express the Mind of God.

What say you?
Click to expand...

Ineffable is a word, invented and defined by man. Maybe belching expresses it.
 
devildavid said:
Ineffable is a word, invented and defined by man. Maybe belching expresses it.
Click to expand...
What is your point for Chrissakes? You keep repeating the language is an invention of Man. So what? What is your point?
 
This reminds me a bit of the episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation in which the crew of the Enterprise could not figure out the language of an alien race until they finally realized the aliens spoke entirely in metaphors.
 
RobertU said:
This reminds me a bit of the episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation in which the crew of the Enterprise could not figure out the language of an alien race until they finally realized the aliens spoke entirely in metaphors.
Click to expand...

Are you speaking metaphorically there?

It's difficult to know when people are being opaque by using metaphors, often for mendacious reasons. Makes a nice TV series but, doesn't work so well when you need to be precise and say what you mean, so that you are then forced to stand by a concept rather than be vague and give yourself some wriggle room to back out or, simply to be vague so that you can string people along.
 
William Rea said:
Are you speaking metaphorically there?

It's difficult to know when people are being opaque by using metaphors, often for mendacious reasons. Makes a nice TV series but, doesn't work so well when you need to be precise and say what you mean, so that you are then forced to stand by a concept rather than be vague and give yourself some wriggle room to back out or, simply to be vague so that you can string people along.
Click to expand...

Metaphors are the language of poetry, spirituality and dreams and can be considered a universal language that transcends boundaries. For example, if you have a dream in which you are caught in a spider web, that would be universally recognized as a message that the dreamer feels trapped and helpless. You don't need actual words to convey the message.
 
RobertU said:
Metaphors are the language of poetry, spirituality and dreams and can be considered a universal language that transcends boundaries. For example, if you have a dream in which you are caught in a spider web, that would be universally recognized as a message that the dreamer feels trapped and helpless. You don't need actual words to convey the message.
Click to expand...

Clear as mud.
 
William Rea said:
Are you speaking metaphorically there?

It's difficult to know when people are being opaque by using metaphors, often for mendacious reasons. Makes a nice TV series but, doesn't work so well when you need to be precise and say what you mean, so that you are then forced to stand by a concept rather than be vague and give yourself some wriggle room to back out or, simply to be vague so that you can string people along.
Click to expand...
Your post suggests that you are not acquainted with the great poets. You might want to see to that.
On the other hand, all language is metaphorical in nature. So you might want to rethink your position whether or not you dip into poetry.
 
RobertU said:
Metaphors are the language of poetry, spirituality and dreams and can be considered a universal language that transcends boundaries. For example, if you have a dream in which you are caught in a spider web, that would be universally recognized as a message that the dreamer feels trapped and helpless. You don't need actual words to convey the message.
Click to expand...

Or the dreamer could have a death wish. Or fallen asleep reading Lord Of The Flies. Or seen the movie The Fly. There are many possibilities.
 
zyzygy said:
Or the dreamer could have a death wish. Or fallen asleep reading Lord Of The Flies. Or seen the movie The Fly. There are many possibilities.
Click to expand...

Or simply tangled up in their sheets.
 
Angel said:
Your post suggests that you are not acquainted with the great poets. You might want to see to that.
On the other hand, all language is metaphorical in nature. So you might want to rethink your position whether or not you dip into poetry.
Click to expand...

The ingredients written on the side of a cereal box are metaphorical. What does it all mean?
 
devildavid said:
The ingredients written on the side of a cereal box are metaphorical. What does it all mean?
Click to expand...
All language is metaphorical. On what it all means, I'm afraid you missed the boat. I'll draw up a reading list for you if you find God.
 
I think he was saying that there are some things we can't put into words, so we are silent.
 
Angel said:
All language is metaphorical. On what it all means, I'm afraid you missed the boat. I'll draw up a reading list for you if you find God.
Click to expand...

All language includes deity metaphors...

"We are as gods, we might as well get good at it."
Stewart Brand
 
devildavid said:
Ineffable is a word, invented and defined by man. Maybe belching expresses it.
Click to expand...

In my experience, ineffability arises in debates from those who find themselves in a corner and unable to say anything coherent about a deity. In that case, they ought to remain silent, according to the wise bit of sophistry under discussion, but they can't help themselves.
 
Copernicus said:
In my experience, ineffability arises in debates from those who find themselves in a corner and unable to say anything coherent about a deity. In that case, they ought to remain silent, according to the wise bit of sophistry under discussion, but they can't help themselves.
Click to expand...

lol...
 
Copernicus said:
In my experience, ineffability arises in debates from those who find themselves in a corner and unable to say anything coherent about a deity. In that case, they ought to remain silent, according to the wise bit of sophistry under discussion, but they can't help themselves.
Click to expand...
In my experience ineffability faces all those who attempt to express in language the mysterious corners of the human condition. Poets, for example.

BRW20Va.jpg

For Once, Then, Something
Robert Frost, 1874 - 1963

Others taunt me with having knelt at well-curbs
Always wrong to the light, so never seeing
Deeper down in the well than where the water
Gives me back in a shining surface picture
Me myself in the summer heaven godlike
Looking out of a wreath of fern and cloud puffs.
Once, when trying with chin against a well-curb,
I discerned, as I thought, beyond the picture,
Through the picture, a something white, uncertain,
Something more of the depths—and then I lost it.
Water came to rebuke the too clear water.
One drop fell from a fern, and lo, a ripple
Shook whatever it was lay there at bottom,
Blurred it, blotted it out. What was that whiteness?
Truth? A pebble of quartz? For once, then, something.
 
Angel said:
In my experience ineffability faces all those who attempt to express in language the mysterious corners of the human condition. Poets, for example.

BRW20Va.jpg

For Once, Then, Something
Robert Frost, 1874 - 1963

Others taunt me with having knelt at well-curbs
Always wrong to the light, so never seeing
Deeper down in the well than where the water
Gives me back in a shining surface picture
Me myself in the summer heaven godlike
Looking out of a wreath of fern and cloud puffs.
Once, when trying with chin against a well-curb,
I discerned, as I thought, beyond the picture,
Through the picture, a something white, uncertain,
Something more of the depths—and then I lost it.
Water came to rebuke the too clear water.
One drop fell from a fern, and lo, a ripple
Shook whatever it was lay there at bottom,
Blurred it, blotted it out. What was that whiteness?
Truth? A pebble of quartz? For once, then, something.
Click to expand...

Actually, poets are quite good at expressing their thoughts in words. That's the whole point. It is not language that limits them. It is language that empowers them. We can talk about anything that we can have thoughts about, because language is basically word-guided mental telepathy. Any emotion or mood can be quite nicely described in terms of language, because the speech signal itself is only a means of evoking mental states and associations that we all already possess.

What I was talking about was what I like to call the "ineffability defense", which seems invariably to crop up in debates over the nature of God. Concepts like "omnipotence" and "omniscience" lead to all sorts of contradictions and confusion, and a good case can be made that an "omnimax" deity of the sort that Christians attempt to describe is simply a logically impossible being. When confronted with the usual conundrums, believers tend to fall back on the facile claim that finite minds cannot possibly comprehend an infinite being, that such a being is ultimately "ineffable". IMO, that claim is intellectually bankrupt, since the person claiming it admittedly does not know what he or she is even talking about. The point of the adage in the OP is that pursuit of such a defense is pointless and should not even be tried.
 
Copernicus said:
Actually, poets are quite good at expressing their thoughts in words. That's the whole point. It is not language that limits them. It is language that empowers them. We can talk about anything that we can have thoughts about, because language is basically word-guided mental telepathy. Any emotion or mood can be quite nicely described in terms of language, because the speech signal itself is only a means of evoking mental states and associations that we all already possess.
Click to expand...
So what is the Frost poem about? We can go on to other poems and poets later, since you claim a certain authority on and familiarity with the subject, but let's start with the Frost poem, yes? What is it about, on your reading?

Copernicus said:
What I was talking about was what I like to call the "ineffability defense", which seems invariably to crop up in debates over the nature of God. Concepts like "omnipotence" and "omniscience" lead to all sorts of contradictions and confusion, and a good case can be made that an "omnimax" deity of the sort that Christians attempt to describe is simply a logically impossible being. When confronted with the usual conundrums, believers tend to fall back on the facile claim that finite minds cannot possibly comprehend an infinite being, that such a being is ultimately "ineffable". IMO, that claim is intellectually bankrupt, since the person claiming it admittedly does not know what he or she is even talking about. The point of the adage in the OP is that pursuit of such a defense is pointless and should not even be tried.
Click to expand...
The case against any conception of the nature of God is easy enough to make -- Guru Dawkins has made a whole second career out of such facile polemics, and I see in your posts a worthy acolyte of Dawkinsism. Of course if the theist doesn't know what he's talking about, how much more "intellectually bankrupt" is the atheist, who can claim far less cachet to eff about God than the theist?

By the by the quote in the OP is not an adage; it is a line from Wittgenstein's Tractatus, and are you confident that Wittgenstein's thesis in that work is fairly rendered by you as a an argument against apologetics?
 
Angel said:
So what is the Frost poem about? We can go on to other poems and poets later, since you claim a certain authority on and familiarity with the subject, but let's start with the Frost poem, yes? What is it about, on your reading?
Click to expand...

Like most of his poetry, it was about his sense of not being certain of how to deal with uncertainty and confusion. Ineffability is not about our uncertainty or things we don't understand. Those are life's puzzles. It refers to what we cannot, in principle, understand. What is the point of striving to understand what is unreachable? The poem doesn't tell us to stop trying.

Angel said:
The case against any conception of the nature of God is easy enough to make -- Guru Dawkins has made a whole second career out of such facile polemics, and I see in your posts a worthy acolyte of Dawkinsism. Of course if the theist doesn't know what he's talking about, how much more "intellectually bankrupt" is the atheist, who can claim far less cachet to eff about God than the theist?
Click to expand...

I see that you have something of an obsession with Guru Dawkins. I do like the guy, but I wouldn't climb up a mountain to sit at his feet in the hopes of imbibing a drop of wisdom. That's for disciples of Satan, and I am just one of the lesser minions. I did once go to a high school auditorium to listen to him speak. He seemed mortal, but who can say? Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would just sort of forget about Dawkins and respond to what I actually wrote. You keep bringing him up here, but I don't recall invoking his name in my last post. I am less of an authority on Dawkins. Peace Be Upon Him and Blessed Be His Name.

Angel said:
By the by the quote in the OP is not an adage; it is a line from Wittgenstein's Tractatus, and are you confident that Wittgenstein's thesis in that work is fairly rendered by you as a an argument against apologetics?
Click to expand...

Oh, I actually quite like Wittgenstein, who had the distinction of being a seminal figure on both sides of the 20th century debate between Ideal and Ordinary Language philosophers. Nevertheless, you used the quote out of context and asked people to supply their sense of what it meant. That actually turned it into something of an adage in the context of this thread. Or did you expect everyone in this thread to have read and understood the Tractatus?
 
Copernicus said:
Like most of his poetry, it was about his sense of not being certain of how to deal with uncertainty and confusion. Ineffability is not about our uncertainty or things we don't understand. Those are life's puzzles. It refers to what we cannot, in principle, understand. What is the point of striving to understand what is unreachable? The poem doesn't tell us to stop trying.



I see that you have something of an obsession with Guru Dawkins. I do like the guy, but I wouldn't climb up a mountain to sit at his feet in the hopes of imbibing a drop of wisdom. That's for disciples of Satan, and I am just one of the lesser minions. I did once go to a high school auditorium to listen to him speak. He seemed mortal, but who can say? Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would just sort of forget about Dawkins and respond to what I actually wrote. You keep bringing him up here, but I don't recall invoking his name in my last post. I am less of an authority on Dawkins. Peace Be Upon Him and Blessed Be His Name.



Oh, I actually quite like Wittgenstein, who had the distinction of being a seminal figure on both sides of the 20th century debate between Ideal and Ordinary Language philosophers. Nevertheless, you used the quote out of context and asked people to supply their sense of what it meant. That actually turned it into something of an adage in the context of this thread. Or did you expect everyone in this thread to have read and understood the Tractatus?
Click to expand...
Your reading of the Frost poem fails to address the singularity expressed in the last line, which seems to me to be the whole point of the poem.

Your debut post to this thread was an anti-theist mini-rant reminiscent of Guru Dawkins, and so you invited comparisons.
Quid pro quo: I'll stop with the Dawkins; you stop with the anti-theism. This is supposed to be a philosophy thread on the limits of language after all.

Your criticism of the OP fails at post #2.
 
Angel said:
Your reading of the Frost poem fails to address the singularity expressed in the last line, which seems to me to be the whole point of the poem.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that my interpretation fails to address the last line, which fits in with what went before it. My reading is just different from yours. The beauty of poetry is in the images it invokes in the mind, and it is seldom the case that there is just one interpretation of its significance. Uncertainty is not the same as ineffability, and I think that is where your take on the quote in the OP goes off the tracks.

Angel said:
Your debut post to this thread was an anti-theist mini-rant reminiscent of Guru Dawkins, and so you invited comparisons.
Quid pro quo: I'll stop with the Dawkins; you stop with the anti-theism. This is supposed to be a philosophy thread on the limits of language after all.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you what. You stop making silly comparisons between me and Richard Dawkins. I get that you and a lot of other people hate him, and so his name can be used to tar another individual rather than address the content of what that individual says. As for my anti-theism, that is probably a theme that is going to crop up in my contributions here at least as often as your anti-atheism does. So the deal I am willing to make with you is that we not try to muzzle each other's honest expression of disagreement.

Angel said:
Your criticism of the OP fails at post #2.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, I tried. Yours failed at post #1, so you can keep the prize. ;)
 
Copernicus said:
I don't believe that my interpretation fails to address the last line, which fits in with what went before it. My reading is just different from yours. The beauty of poetry is in the images it invokes in the mind, and it is seldom the case that there is just one interpretation of its significance. Uncertainty is not the same as ineffability, and I think that is where your take on the quote in the OP goes off the tracks.
Click to expand...
If your paradigm of language-driven thought is correct, then uncertainty and ineffability are related, no?
As for the Wittgenstein line quoted in the OP, it seems clear to me, even without identifying the source, that the line is about the limits of language, not the limits of thought. The terms are speaking and silence after all. And given the source -- since we both appear to have an appreciation of Wittgenstein -- you are no doubt familiar with the even more famous line of his in which he asserts that the limits of his language are the limits of his world, yes?
In short, I don't see my take on the OP quote as "off the tracks," but I welcome elaboration from you on this score.

Copernicus said:
I'll tell you what. You stop making silly comparisons between me and Richard Dawkins. I get that you and a lot of other people hate him, and so his name can be used to tar another individual rather than address the content of what that individual says. As for my anti-theism, that is probably a theme that is going to crop up in my contributions here at least as often as your anti-atheism does. So the deal I am willing to make with you is that we not try to muzzle each other's honest expression of disagreement.
Click to expand...
For the record, I am not anti-atheist. I have the greatest respect for the great atheist thinkers of the past, such as Sartre and Camus. I am anti-anti-theist, which is today's pop atheism, a strident ill-informed brand of atheism that is really anti-religion and based on fear and ignorance, a brand of atheism generated some fifteen years ago by Dawkins and company, a form of religious bigotry that has done a great deal of harm in its influence on non-critical minds. Your debut post and its follow-up were chapter and verse out of the New Atheism, and so the association on my part was not silly as it addressed quite specifically the content of your posts.
I'm completely in accord with your anti-muzzling agreement. I'm first and last in favor of the free and open marketplace of ideas.

Copernicus said:
Oh, well, I tried. Yours failed at post #1, so you can keep the prize. ;)
Click to expand...
The intention of the OP was that knowledge of Wittgenstein or his work is unnecessary to forming an opinion on the quoted line, but it is identified as a line from a philosophical word and your characterization of it as an "adage" and "a wise piece of sophistry" that launched on this one-upmanship trophy hunt. We can move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom