The Limitation(s) of Language
While this topic is not novel, something in another thread made me think of this... . And while I think we understand that, philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation- William James, we also know that the logic of life and language itself has its challenges:
[i][/Some people see turquoise as a shade of blue and others as a shade of green. But are we sure we see it differently, or do we use words differently? We can't really be sure that we see red or yellow the same way, but we agree to call the color of blood 'red'. Similarly, we might have different ideas of what we mean by anger, love , fear, or anything else.
It seems fairly obvious that we can use language to tell the truth or to lie. Bertrand
Russell went further and said a statement can also be meaningless. A sentence such as 'The King of France is bald' is neither true nor false as there is no king of France. If we said it was false, that would imply that the king of France is not bald, but does not exist. Then there are totally perplexing statemenst such as 'Everything I say is a lie', which if true is false, and if false is true .i]
And so, in a sort of poll-like manner, I am wondering what others think or view this phenomenon to be in that context of language. Please provide your bullet-point sound bites on what you think fits into this category. I will start with 'ineffable' experiences that one might have.
1. The experience of listening to music.
[i][/Some people see turquoise as a shade of blue and others as a shade of green. But are we sure we see it differently, or do we use words differently? We can't really be sure that we see red or yellow the same way, but we agree to call the color of blood 'red'. Similarly, we might have different ideas of what we mean by anger, love , fear, or anything else.
It seems fairly obvious that we can use language to tell the truth or to lie. Bertrand
Russell went further and said a statement can also be meaningless. A sentence such as 'The King of France is bald' is neither true nor false as there is no king of France. If we said it was false, that would imply that the king of France is not bald, but does not exist. Then there are totally perplexing statemenst such as 'Everything I say is a lie', which if true is false, and if false is true .i]
And so, in a sort of poll-like manner, I am wondering what others think or view this phenomenon to be in that context of language. Please provide your bullet-point sound bites on what you think fits into this category. I will start with 'ineffable' experiences that one might have.
1. The experience of listening to music.
Comments (65)
But if we continue to study and develop, usually what happens is we begin to focus in more on certain specialized subjects. Then our understanding can begin to grow vertically beyond the sedimented historic meanings of words and begin to encapsulate expanded meanings, based on whatever frameworks of investigation and validation.
But there is more than that. We can also expand our understanding horizontally, covering a wider array of subjects and contexts. And this is the process wherein we encounter most the limitations of language. Or, I'd rather say, where intuitive apprehensions of connections surpass or supersede sedimented meaning. What kind of light does quantum physics shed on evolution? Or what does early twentieth century intellectualism teach us about social democracy?
Even further than that. The longer we live, the more opportunity we have to observe what I'd call "very long term consequences" of our habits of thought. Things that simply cannot be "reasoned out" in an hour, or a day, or even a year. Because they are the results of many different kinds of efforts, in many different dimensions of life.
So, yes, in the largest sense, I think words are only ever approximations. I think the closer we look at life, the more we come to understand exactly how much of it really is "ineffable" as you say.
2. The experience of going to a museum with a friend and see the same paint. For example, Saturn eating his own sons by Goya (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturno_devorando_a_su_hijo)
As you explained previously, language is very important for not only communicate with others but for understanding all the stimulus perceive for us.
When we are experiencing some ineffable feelings as a paint it is important our background in terms of culture vocabulary. Probably for someone, when they see Saturn eating his own sons would think is scary or even horrendous so the vocabulary and then language could be "basic". But if we are someone who loves art and general culture we would give it another perception explained it with different words.
I do not want say here one is better than other. I want to explain that the own criteria in culture will affect the language and its vocabulary.
Then, and it is just my guess, only those who wants to improve their knowledge could have in the long run more chances to avoid "ineffable" but beautiful things as paint, art, music, sculptures, etc... Isn't it the beauty of language?
Perhaps, one of the problems is if thoughts which are expressed in language are taken too concretely when they are only representations. Art is another form of representation and part of the role of art therapy is because it gives another way of expression, without words. Music, without lyrics, of course, is another medium. Some people are more verbal than others and it seems likely that philosophers are probably more verbal in the way that they process experience. But, ultimately, surely language can only be a way of constructing models of experience or reality.
Not to single any one out, however said something that reminded me of Keats: "Truth is beauty, beauty truth; that's all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
Philosophically, that almost begs the question of Voluntarism; the Will v. the Intellect. Take for example the law of attraction and/or the power of words and affirmation. Say one tells oneself that they are going to be 'successful', they repeat it continuously, then seemingly it comes into existence for them.
But do they have to tell themselves that first, or is it a secondary apperception of language? I agree with the sentiments about the paradoxical nature of this problem. Let's say I'm sad about something, Am I sad because my logic of his or her word formulations are making me sad, or is there an existential angst (my will) that preceeds the intellect thus making it so?
Even if by considering Keats, we can receive or even associate feelings of joy (in this case) with Truth, how does our feelings of truth manifest? Language only? Is our truth ours and ours only? What is Truth?
Say I'm an engineer and design an award winning novel structure through the language of mathematics, how should I feel about that? It seems like that particular (engineer's) language conveys a purpose or meaning.
It seems as though, we should add into the database here, that the logic of language may just be a means to an end... (?)
Since we human's like to dichotomize things, does the logic of language come before feeling, or does feeling come first? Do words invoke feelings, or do feelings invoke words?
These wouldn't be limitations of language because language can't be used to discover its own limitations.
I don't see why we can't use language to remark on the limitations of our language. That would seem like saying we can't use our minds to think about our own mental limitations.
I'm not sure what you're asking. If something's ineffable, it can't be described in words. Are you asking for a description of the experience of listening to music? Then I think one can't be given. Are you asking if we think the experience of listening to music can't be described in words? Then, yes, that's what I think.
Interesting quotes about Keats. Something complex as truth is just another example which fits in this debate. It is an abstract concept that somehow could be "ineffable". Feelings of truth will manifest in reality depending on the human behavior we are speaking about.
Then, literally only exists our truth and the way we express. Some will accept it others will not. But I think here is not important about other but you. The human himself creating a world with the "reality" and truth he is experiencing.
Also, I don't know if we are able to express truth just with language. I guess here is important the art of evidence and theorizing. For example: I can tell to you is impossible go to the Sun because their high temperature would kill us. Here you can say it is just words despite it is true we cannot travel to the Sun. Then, I decide create a robot which can at least take photo near of the Sun orbit. Later on, I show you the evidence why the Sun could kill us.
It is true that here I use a lot of evidences but it started with just words. What if language is the root of everything we ever discovered?
Words don't have one time definitive meanings. Take the prefix "meta" - the original Greek meaning was 'after.' In English it came to refer to something self-referential, but modern day usage is adapting the term further - to refer now to a higher level of abstraction.
Consequently, I'm inclined to the view that language, like water, shapes itself to the vessel it is in.
Within everything exist everything, so the paradox of the above statement is present in all statements if we allow ourselves to realize it.
For example, consider the statement, "The boy has the blue balloon." If there is no visible light present, does the boy still have the balloon? Is it still blue?
Language (in its clumsy manner) is chasing an event (or thought) that never really existed (it was never available to our limited intellect). It's an approximation of an approximation which is why keeping one's mouth shut is almost always the best course of action in this life.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Wow, keep them coming all... .
TMF & JC: I think you're both right. Meaning, if TMF is describing the limitations of logic synonymous with, say, Kantian things-in-themselves, then yes I believe he is right. In that sense, we are left with a sort of Kantian phenomenology associated with language and the limitations thereto.
At the same time, JC points out the paradoxical nature of a double negative, to name a few issues. For instance, if we are saying we can't use the mind to understand the mind itself (the nature of its existence), we are left with an interesting paradox... .
While we can use our mind to think about these issues of self-awareness, it seems we are doomed to failure when confronting the nature of its own existence. In those quick examples, we can describe things, but not fully explain things.
CW!
Okay, I was just trying to confirm... . In other words, if something is ineffable, does that mean, in your mind, that there is no other way to use language to convey a meaningful response?
For example, say a musician is playing his/her instrument and 'trading bars' with another musician by spontaneous improvisation, or and engineer is reviewing another engineer's design calculations. In those instances, one would think that even those things which are ineffable, do require an understanding of a different language. In this case, it's musical language and engineering language.
Of course, we could also say that in theoretical physics/cosmology, that although like the engineer, the language of mathematics' tend to rule the day, it's quite conceivable that a whole other language might be necessary to explain the origins of same (the universe).
And so to your pointed questions, I agree that we are seemingly, once again, doomed to failure here... .
The tao that can be spoken is not the eternal tao.
That is using language to describe the ineffable. Moreover, the more deeply contextualized the reference, the more the ineffable is "caught".
It's not impossible, it just requires careful execution.
It probably depends on how one considers the idea of the ineffable. Is it beyond words at all, or just beyond a certain person's ability to articulate? Also, when someone says that they can't put some aspect of experience into words, perhaps they can push themselves further to find the words. The words may be descriptive rather than explanation, but the description may be the starting point for further enquiry, including some kind of grasp for explanation.
:up:
Do you think that it depends on one's focus, as well? I think that it does, because on some days my thinking seems clearer. In understanding others writings, I find that I try to read something quickly and, then once again, more slowly. I have never done translation to know that process and, of course, it is not always clear if the way one interprets is exactly what the person who was writing had in mind. However, that probably needs one to be able to enter into the private universe of the writer, and we can only do that in our imaginary way.
I have hardly read any Parmenides, but I am inclined to think that the further removed from ordinary language that thinkers go, this is more inclined to mystify understanding. This seems to happen more within philosophical writing, where the abstract is often given preference. In literature, including poetry and fiction, even when there is emphasis on the symbolic, the descriptive has some link with the senses. When we are confronted with what appears to be ineffable, Ì believe that the starting point may be looking at one's experience, including the sensory, through mindful awareness and this may offer a gateway towards using language to understand what appears to be mysterious.
Javi!
Interesting. Is it safe to assume we are talking about Subjective and Objective truth's? Perhaps one can think of their own sentience as their own unique language onto themselves, nevertheless, their own subjective truth... ?
Quoting javi2541997
If you mean that the logic of language precedes the will, that could have interesting implications. For instance, one would have to acquiesce to words taking on an exclusive role in our behavior; how we act and our quality of life needs. That in turn has all sorts of implications relative to our human condition, be it socio-political or anything else...interesting… .
I'm thinking we would simply not be able to react to a stimulus that say's...' I don't like what he/she just said, so therefore I'm going to respond (using language of course) in like manner... '. We would be denying our own Will, or at least our intuition, etc. I think... .
This is Heidegger's evaluation of Parmenides, and he absolutely grounds this originary grasp of meta-phusis in the poetic too. You have to really take it slow. At least I do.
I absolutely think there is an element of focus to it. I have spent considerable time trying to define and quantify exactly what constitutes "cognitive effort"....
If you cannot say it, how can you mean it?
I think yes. Probably out here there is only one truth in the end of the day. We can call it tangible world (for example) that show us to how truly is, without any kind of interpretation. Nevertheless, humans tend to be so abstract because we are capable of living in two worlds: tangible and abstract (or ideas) because our amazing knowledge provides us this skill. Using the ideas we were creating a lot of important things along our existence. But these are free interpretation. Every person, itself, will has their own language but the same reality. Some would agree in a same point, others probably don't but it is still good because there is nothing bad about seeing and speaking the same reality with different language.
Quoting 3017amen
Interesting thesis. I guess with this implication everything would be easier because we would be capable of using vocabulary in the most objective way and then avoiding all interference. This, our subjective vocabulary. But this would be hard because humans love to have ideas and be abstract along their lives.
FYI: I've no idea what is nattering on about in the OP.
You mentioned Ineffability and if you follow the link, you'll be lead to a page which discusses the issue but if you notice the focus is on religion and religious experiences. A quote for you:
[quote=Wikipedia]An example (of ineffability) is the name of God in Judaism, written as YHWH but substituted with Adonai ("the Lord") or HaShem ("the name") when reading.[/quote]
It's something right up your alley I suppose 3017amen.
Anyway, that the most obvious example of an ineffable is religious in character is telling, don't you think? What's the nexus between religion and ineffability and by extension language? There's the tower of babel, a legend about how god sowed the seeds of confusion among people by making languages mutually unintelligible which suggests that language is a powerful tool at least when it comes cooperation, capable of even god-level feats. Why else would god go through all the trouble of confusing us? On the flip side, we have the divine itself as ineffable, HaShem. Thus we have two ideas about language: one, as a very powerful tool, capable of grasping the divine and thus the tower of babel and two, as not-powerful enough to comprehend the divine. What gives? I think this is tangential to the OP though but it makes zero sense insofar as the link between language and the divine (ineffable) is concerned.
...but there isn't an experience of listening to music.
Listening to Jimi Hendrix is not the same experience as listening to Brahms. Listening to Jimi while cruising a highway is not the same experience as listening to Jimi while trying to solve a difficult puzzle.
Further, it's tempting to think there is something you mean, but you can't quite find the words... but if you cannot say it, how can you mean it?
With de ja vu, it feels as if this has happened before; but it hasn't. Why shouldn't it feel as if you want to express something but cannot find the words... and yet there is nothing actually there that could be expressed? Why suppose that language is inadequate, when it might just be that you have nothing to say.
Can you briefly tell me why that is?
(Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics)
Heidegger's take on "the ineffable"....
I sometimes think that the way religious and mystical writers speak of the 'ineffable' to be some lack of willingness to explore further. I am not sure if it is because they prefer to keep their thinking fuzzy. Obviously, each writer has an individual psychology, but I do think that the mystifying is language is a real problem in philosophy for the dialogue between science and religion, because writers from the two perspectives choose to use language in such different ways.
I think that this is particularly apparent in the philosophy of mind. The scientists often speak in the language of neuroscience and the religious speak of the soul. It seems to me that the idea of the soul seems to mystify the question of mind, while the neuroscientists seem to be talking in reductive terms. This is a matter which involves explanations, but I do wonder if the root of the differences really is about the whole way in which language is used to speak, with a possibility of too much mystification, or, alternatively a wish to remove any hint of mystery completely.
So if the underlying-total project of the logos is the comprehension of Being as such (the Being of beings), then, necessarily, as we approach higher layers of abstraction, the experience of Being becomes increasingly "ineffable". Suggesting a kind of original intuitive-synthetic apprehension. The word "sinks down to become a mere sign".
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes, H. repeatedly touches on this, when language fails to un-conceal it begins to conceal.....
TMF!
Thank you kindly for the link, it said:
Ineffability is concerned with ideas that cannot or should not be expressed in spoken words (or language in general), often being in the form of a taboo or incomprehensible term. This property is commonly associated with philosophy, aspects of existence, and similar concepts that are inherently "too great", complex or abstract to be communicated adequately.
I agree, as you alluded, that there are varieties of religious experiences that are ineffable. In your mind, are there others? For example, say the feelings of love, or to be excruciatingly graphic, during procreation activities/love-making, are those kinds of things similar, you think?
Interesting. In what ways are they different? (Can language capture the phenomenon...)
The former is a classic example (liar's paradox) of binary truth values associated with a priori logic, and the limitations of language (thereto). This occurs primarily with sentence structures of self reference and self referential statements. The main point is that not only does it underscore the limitations of language, it undermines the truth values, one being the nature of (our) existence.
With respect to the latter, my interpretation of that would be the necessity of a posteriori logic, and the need to perform empirical analysis to determine its truth value. In that case, you would seek to discover whether the boy has the balloon or not in order to determine the truth value.
Perhaps the consistent theme is, we are trapped in this mystery of self-awareness, which resides in our consciousness.
Perhaps, but much more fundamental would be the acknowledgement that the human intellect is simply incapable of accessing reality in any way, shape, or form, so instead, we make-up all kinds of ways to approximate (for practical reasons). Whatever combination of letters/numbers you may wish to suggest have a relationship based on some natural law is stretching it a bit.
This is not to disparage mathematics or language, in general, as they satisfy basic needs, but (and as is always the case), it is in the understanding inherent limitations that give forth true value.
Well said Synthesis! BTW- I like the concept/term you used 'approximate' (language being an approximation- of a something).
What "...should not be expressed..." has nothing to do with language and is more about stuff like respect, pity, love, goodwill, taboo, etc. For instance, many times I find myself thinking "I don't want to talk about it" and I'm sure this unwillingness to "talk about it" is quite common as evidenced by the many times I've heard it being said aloud to overly inquisitive folks. This, however, as is obvious, not a limitation of language - we can talk about something but it's just that we don't wish to.
What "...cannot be expressed..." is what the limitations of language should (try to) discuss. Come to think of it, this seems to be an impossible task; after all if something is ineffable, it precludes any and all language-based inquiry. It's like trying to break a bulletproof glass with a bullet. It doesn't make sense [@180 Proof "stupid question"].
I don't know why you seem to think that exploring the limitations of language is 'impossible'. You speak of the idea of taboos of people not wishing to discuss certain matters. I wonder if in some ways the whole idea of the 'ineffable' is a way of trying to avoid going too far in thinking.
This resonates at some level with the experiences I've had but the impossibility that I mentioned follows from the contradiction inherent in asking us to,
[quote=Samuel Beckett]eff the ineffable[/quote]
However, it appears that we're at liberty to beat around The Burning Bush
Quoting TheMadFool
Sure, but that is not germane to the issue. Thanks anyway!
Quoting TheMadFool
As Jack alluded, are you saying we can't use our minds to think about our own mental limitations?
But back to the question that you were unable to answer, in paraphrase, when we experience moments of pleasure (or anger) what are the distinctions in expression?
Might such a paradox provoke one to step-back for a moment and consider alternatives to conceptualization? Might there just be another (better) way to seek the truth of the matter?
And if this truth is confronted (then realized), will you then be prepared to demote your language from master to slave and see that reality cannot even be imagined, yet qualified/quantified.
I am thinking how you(synthesis) spoke of the idea of the ineffable at some point in your discussion of the relative and the absolute thread. Obviously, our words and our thoughts are limited but I do believe that they are the best tools we have. The scientists don't say that they can't understand everything, so they might as well stop trying, and, of course, the scientists rely on language as much as other writers. As far as mysticism is concerned, I am drawn towards it by nature, but my inner philosopher reminds me to use words for critical thinking rather than to just remain perplexed by the mysteries.
However, we all probably have blindspots in our thinking, and, perhaps, even meditation can aid us to greater awareness, because words can emerge from the void of silence, a bit like @Madfool s suggestion of the 'Burning Bush', referred to, in his recent post above, to me.
Synthesis!
Sure. Thank you for that thought... . For reference, we can look to Kant and Schop (few of many) in parsing the different theories of knowledge and apperception(s). Meaning, in laymen's terms, how do we perceive our truth's, and how does the intellect, and the logic of language impact our (epistemic) knowledge. Consider a blind or deaf persons ability to perceive things without those natural abilities, thru the intellect/language, so as to affect apperception (our ability to have self-awareness).
As a segue to questions of how languages help us, I'm thinking that perhaps exploring the teleology of language and how this provides for self-awareness/self-consciousness might be more intriguing here. What is the purpose of language, was it caused or was it human invention?
For example, one question might be, did language evolve, and if so is it still evolving, and if yes, what are the future possibilities in providing for this better quality of self-awareness? Could the evolutional changes in language somehow be the only means and method by which we seek and perceive our truth's? We know for instance, that the language of math (and modern day discoveries in same) provides for a certain level of understanding about the Cosmos, etc. etc.. But will a different set of equations and languages be necessary for a complete ToE?
Lot's of different implications there, thanks for planting that seed...thoughts?
I guess I went off on a tangent. I'm always distracted but generally by beauty. So, if you want to use me as a beauty-meter here you might want to give what I wrote a second look. Disclaimer: I suffer from Quasimodo syndrome and of course as Shakespeare said, "beauty lies in the eye of the beholder."
I recently watched a series of videos on philosophy and it had a 30-40 minute episode on mysticism and what really caught my attention was the words, "...to be conscious without being conscious of anything..." Is that possible? Not so from a Western perspective on consciousness which is defined as awareness, awareness of something (the world, the self). I brought this up because to be in a mystical state as defined above, I wouldn't be able to describe the experience as my mind is literally emptied of all its contents. Doesn't that qualify as an ineffable experience?
Probably in the midst of an extreme mystical experience a person would be so absorbed that that wouldn't be the moment to describe it. One thing that strikes me is the importance of choice and whether the person wishes to communicate the experience to others or not. Metaphysical poets, such John Donne, chose to write poetry and some may wish to create art about it.
But, I do believe that it all comes down to a mixture of motivation and ability to convey a certain experience to others. I am aware that I see communication of peak experiences as important, but that is probably because my own searching is bound up with my own quest for creativity. Many people may be coming from a different angle and not see communication of the experience as important, and settle for speaking of the ineffable. So, it is what works for each person.
I have just read your post again and you are asking at the end about how you would approach your own experience. Of course, I don't know if you are speaking on the basis of having experienced any mystical states or with a view to potential opnes. If they are ones you have already experienced only you can decide whether you are able to describe them or not, and if they are ones you may have you will have to wait and see.
One thing I would like to be able to do better is draw and paint the images I see on the borderline before I get to sleep. I haven't managed it really, but I wish to work to be able to do so. However, I can describe the experience, but that is probably because it is not emptiness.If anything, I don't value emptiness that greatly and see it more as creative block, but that is purely my own subjective view.
As a Zen student (and Jack and I have chatted about this), my path to the non-intellectual is meditation. I always thought if it was good enough for the historical Buddha, it's good enough for me, :) but I believe there must be all kinds of ways to gain access.
Regardless of the method of entry, when you frequent the non-intellectual, you begin to understand the contradictions and paradoxes giving rise to the conceptual mind, and to the degree that thinking occupies a category somewhere between incredibly lacking and downright absurd.
Not content with observing the flow, the conceptual mind implores us to pick at those things that excite us (one way or another) so we must depart from actual life and take on our role as commentator (as if we have a clue).
As one becomes more comfortable in the flow of things, the urge to jump onto the banks of the stream lessen as you realize that reality (without adding your 2 cents) is not only considerably more accurate, but it affords you a much lighter sense of being as you have been relieved from your responsibility of having to figure-out every damn thing.
The limitations of language adds another section to the intellectual maze that leads most people to a life of incredible stress and suffering. Attempting to think one's way through the convolutions is impossible as we cannot even understand the simplest of things.
For those who are willing to give everything up (conceptualization), there exists a much simpler way, that of acceptance, a humbling which makes all things possible.
[i]The Naming of Cats
T. S. Eliot
The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter,
It isn’t just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I’m as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a cat must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.
First of all, there’s the name that the family use daily,
Such as Peter, Augustus, Alonzo, or James,
Such as Victor or Jonathan, George or Bill Bailey—
All of them sensible everyday names.
There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter,
Some for the gentlemen, some for the dames:
Such as Plato, Admetus, Electra, Demeter—
But all of them sensible everyday names,
But I tell you, a cat needs a name that’s particular,
A name that’s peculiar, and more dignified,
Else how can he keep up his tail perpendicular,
Or spread out his whiskers, or cherish his pride?
Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,
Such as Munkustrap, Quaxo, or Coricopat,
Such as Bombalurina, or else Jellylorum—
Names that never belong to more than one cat.
But above and beyond there’s still one name left over,
And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover—
But THE CAT HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess.
When you notice a cat in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular name.[/i]
This is what it is like when you think you mean something, but you can't quite find the words.
And you can put it into words!
Indeed. I'm asking - couldn't you be wrong here? Couldn't it be that you don't have a thought, for which you cannot find the words?
You're fine TMF!
I think you raise a good point there. We know there have been theories associated with the philosophy of beauty (Aesthetics/Kant, et.al.) that impacts our cognition... .
To that end, it cannot be overstated how the act of perceiving or perception of beauty effects our human sentience. Our way of Being. For instance, a simple experience of a sunny day would yield feelings of happiness, contentment, joy, and even a spiritual-high of sorts. Similarly, the previously mentioned feelings associated with say, acts of procreation, invoke feelings that are in fact communicated through aesthetics/the object, in this case, through the object known as the human body/Being. Accordingly, in this context, perhaps the body is just a means to an end. But what is the end goal there, in those instances? Is it to communicate feeling's? Communicate the Will?
It seems we have yet another way to communicate on an interpersonal level. Without talking, we can engage in, yet I utter this word-picture, another form of communication/activity during lovemaking with our partner. As Freud might posit, that way of communicating is quite powerful and 'quite subconscious' if you will-no Schopenhauer pun intended LOL. Or maybe it's simply instinct. All that of course is not too dissimilar to feelings associated with experiencing music and the like. Perhaps the simple takeaway there is that this notion of ineffable experiences (body languages) are wide ranging....
The sound one makes in one language, may be completely different from the sound in another language, which demonstrates the sound itself is unimportant. The sounds are just pointers to things which are not sounds.
If it can be thought, it can be put into words.
Why not?
Can the Mona Lisa be put into words? It certainly was thought.
Was it? It's a painting, not a thought. What part of the Mona Lisa is or was thought? Are you claiming that it was a thought before it was painted - a plan? That can be put into words: "Please do a portrait of Lisa Gherardini..." Be clear, because what is at issue is what is to count as a thought.
Not before only, because.
I'm not following that.
No?
Couldn't you be wrong here? Couldn't it be that da Vinci didn't have a plan for which he could not find the words? What was that thought? Is there something da Vinci meant but could not say, or just a feeling as to what he wanted to paint?
If da Vinci could not say it, how could he mean it?
Because that's how we define "thoughts". That's why we speak of "thoughts" and "feelings", two separate things.
*Nice typo there. :)
In that case, we're talking about symbols:
A symbol is a mark, sign, or word that indicates, signifies, or is understood as representing an idea, object, or relationship. Symbols allow people to go beyond what is known or seen by creating linkages between otherwise very different concepts and experiences. All communication (and data processing) is achieved through the use of symbols. Symbols take the form of words, sounds, gestures, ideas, or visual images and are used to convey other ideas and beliefs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol
As in, you say "Mona Lisa", and you mean something like, "That painting that is so famous; the painting of a woman with a smile that has in Western modern culture become a synonym for "mysterious"". Ie., this is a thought.