It strikes me as casual barstool "philosophy" with no definitive answer that's likely to invite a lot of attempts at humour rather than being a serious philosophical issue that you're puzzled about.
But if I'm wrong and it develops in an unexpectedly positive direction, I'll move it back
It strikes me as casual barstool "philosophy" with no definitive answer that's likely to invite a lot of attempts at humour rather than being a serious philosophical issue that you're puzzled about.
But if I'm wrong and it develops in an unexpectedly positive direction, I'll move it back
Innocent until proven guilty? Let's give it a chance on the front page at least? Could invite some serious discussion about meaning?
To post something philosophical, the sentence "I love you more than words can say." appears to be a self-referential sentence, is that true? It would be more appropriate to say something "I love you more than these words can say."; but, it appears to be self-referential by the general "than words can say" to my eyes.
Is it self-referential?
Terrapin StationDecember 07, 2018 at 19:44#2345020 likes
Sentences don't literally "express meaning," you assign meaning to them. And sure, that sentence is easy for many of us to assign meanings to, and to provide alternate wordings of, etc.
What part of the sentence might you take to be referring to the sentence itself?
In "I love you more than words can say", I'm assuming that it's the "than words can say" part. The words obviously being the words of the sentence itself, including all the words listed in a common dictionary.
Terrapin StationDecember 07, 2018 at 19:58#2345070 likes
No, because it is a statement of inequality, just like saying - 'I am taller than that anthill'. If it were a statement of equality it might be self-referential.
Another example might be 'I am heavier than this scale can measure'. It is not self-referential. It is really just saying something about the limitations of the scale.
No, because it is a statement of inequality, just like saying - 'I am taller than that anthill'. If it were a statement of equality it might be self-referential.
But, intentions have no measure of equality. Do they? They're purely qualitative, with no quantitative measure.
It doesn't appear to be self-referential in the same manner that "I love you more than words can say."
So then simply referring to language or words when there are language or words in the sentence probably isn't sufficient for something to be self-referential
So then simply referring to language or words when there are language or words in the sentence probably isn't sufficient for something to be self-referential
I'm not sure. It seems to me that to talk about intentionalities in the manner of being of greater significance/meaning than "what words can say" seems quite self-referential to me.
Terrapin StationDecember 07, 2018 at 20:51#2345300 likes
Say that we boot up a Commodore 64 and start typing text from websites into it. We're stuck with no storage devices other than the Commodore's on-board RAM.
At the start, though, we type, "The Internet contains much more text than this computer will be able to."
No, because there's no room for ambiguity and vagueness to fill in there as in the case with qualitative aspects of the intentionality of "love" in the sentence posited in the OP. I feel as though half of the meaning of the sentence is expressed in its ambiguity and vagueness.
Terrapin StationDecember 07, 2018 at 21:06#2345440 likes
Why would ambiguity/vagueness have something to do with self-referentiality, though?
I don't know. That's just one component of the meaning of the sentence, is what I meant. Self-referentiality, the other.
Terrapin StationDecember 07, 2018 at 21:08#2345480 likes
The love sentence is similar to the Commdore 64 sentence. They're both saying that the medium at hand isn't capable of doing the job we'd like for it to be able to do.
The love sentence is similar to the Commdore 64 sentence. They're both saying that the medium at hand isn't capable of doing the job we'd like for it to be able to do.
Yes; but I refer you back to what @andrewk said. Namely, the sentence achieves inequality in the case of the Commodore 64. In the case of the intentionality of love, we cannot achieve a state of 'inequality' due to the vagueness and ambiguity of the intentionality or subject of 'love'.
Is it self-referential?
— Wallows
No, because it is a statement of inequality, just like saying - 'I am taller than that anthill'. If it were a statement of equality it might be self-referential.
Another example might be 'I am heavier than this scale can measure'. It is not self-referential. It is really just saying something about the limitations of the scale.
The underlying relationship between affect and its expression is of a mismatch of registers. Were it that I could speak only my mind, I could express the depths of my love. I always love more than words can say.
just like saying - 'I am taller than that anthill'.
Well, no it's not like that, because that sentence is about anthills, while the other is about words.
It's not a direct self-reference, but "language cannot express my love for you" is an expression of my love for you, in language.
So it can't be read directly, but nor is it metaphorical.
So it puts the lie to the notion that language expresses some inner belief; and it puts the lie to the notion that language cannot express what is beyond or outside of language.
The use to which language is put in "I love you more than words can say" transcends language.
Reply to Wallows IN that the sentence is in a language, and is about language. But not in the way that "this sentence starts with 'this'" is self-referential.
...the philosophical point, contra Baden, being that it is a showing, not a saying, but with words.
It actually shows very little, if anything at all. It says "I love you more than words can say". And this is really a meaningless comparison as andrewk points out, the scale is inept. Words really can't say a whole lot about love, love is demonstrated by actions. So what words can say about love is really just an anthill compared to the mountain which love is. And saying "I love you more than..." is an action which only shows the tiniest part, if any (assuming the person speaks the truth), of one's true love.
It seems to me that to talk about intentionalities in the manner of being of greater significance/meaning than "what words can say" seems quite self-referential to me.
Does intention need to be part of analysing the sentence? I feel I'm missing a link there somewhere.
I wonder about the self-referentiality. We know that a logical language cannot allow unrestricted reference to all its components because that allows the construction of Russell-type sentences that are syntactically valid yet lead to contradictions. So the language itself would be inconsistent. But it is not clear to me that such contradictions necessarily arise from allowing restricted reference to the language in which sentences are written. Consider for instance if there is a constant symbol in the language's alphabet that denotes the collection of all well-formed sentences that can be written in the language, but there are no symbols by which one can refer to truth or falsity of a sentence in the language. I cannot see how one would construct a Russell-type contradiction from that, yet perhaps it would allow expression of the sentence in the OP - assuming the language contains a grammar for expressing feelings, which seems a much harder ask regardless of self-referentiality.
I really don't know about expressing feelings in a formal language. For instance, does 'I love you more than words can say' really tell us anything? To me it seems to say there are no combinations of words I can say that could evoke in you the feeling that I am feeling - that would allow you to see that feeling. Could we not say the same about any feeling, ie any quale. Taking the usual example, we could say 'words cannot express to you the experience I have when I look at this piece of paper that we both say is "red" '. All it is doing is pointing at the incommunicability of qualia. If we accept that, is there any difference between the incommunicability of a powerful feeling like overpowering infatuation, and that of a banal feeling like looking at a piece of red paper? Perhaps both the statement about my love and the one about my experience of red are both just ordinary instances of the general statement 'qualia are incommunicable'.
the limits of my language are the limits of my world? Has meaning been expressed adequately with "I love you more than words can say."?
For there to be a limit, there must be that which is beyond the limit, and to speak of the limit is to point at 'whereof one cannot speak'. My world is limited, but my love surpasses the limit, as it surpasses myself. One speaks, obviously, within the limits of language. And at the limit, necessarily one points to what is beyond the limit, not always in the paradox of negation, but as a map of old had an area beyond the known and called it 'unexplored territory.' Words cannot tell what lies in unexplored territory, until we go and explore it.
This is the sentiment of young love. We oldies have explored a bit, and tend to say, "I love you like chips love salt, like shit loves a fan, like a war loves corpses, like a leopard loves spots", and so on. Knowing that it is both extravagant and inadequate.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 08, 2018 at 12:32#2348130 likes
Words cannot tell what lies in unexplored territory, until we go and explore it.
Oh I like that, it's poetry waiting to be written ... love, the unexplored territory, let's go explore it. Almost makes me feel young again, and, in my opinion it holds a lot more potential than the old cliché, "I love you more than words can say".
unenlightenedDecember 08, 2018 at 12:40#2348170 likes
Right, we don't agree then. Meaning is an individual mental event (or series of events). On my view, as something mental, it can't be made public/third-person observable.
Meaning is not the same as a definition. Meaning is a matter of thinking about things so that there's an associative connection.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 08, 2018 at 13:18#2348250 likes
Reply to unenlightened
You ruined the moment! When anything looks so good, there always has to be something bad hiding behind it. It's that duck-rabbit syndrome. The duck looks so happy and lovable, while the rabbit looks mean and ready to attack. Why did you show me the rabbit?
unenlightenedDecember 08, 2018 at 13:31#2348290 likes
My apologies, but love hurts. You better head for the trauma thread for some therapy.
Is this another case of having a huge giant beetle in a box, and saying that it is so awesome to have?
I don't think so. Well I suppose if you declare the existence of dragons having not explored, then it is in a sense. But if you live the ongoing catastrophe that is marriage, you discover that love has little to do with your feelings, and is mainly about wiping other people's bottoms and other forms of taking pains.
Well, I'm under the impression that the meaning in "I love you more than words can say." is extra-syntactic. The map is not the territory; but, I've already supposed that nothing in the territory is illustrative of how I feel about some person.
unenlightenedDecember 08, 2018 at 20:04#2349470 likes
If you really loved me more than words could say, you would say nothing, would you not? Since you attempted to quantify your love for me, I have to assume that you do not love with more than words can say. And after all I've done for you!
"I love you" is meaningful, "I will love you until the day I die" is meaningful. "I will love you as long as you are beautiful; after that, forget it" is meaningful. A bit too frank and honest, but meaningful. "I will love you forever" is highly doubtful, because you are not going to live forever, and even if you did, I don't expect to be around forever to check up on whether you are fulfilling your claim. Jesus can get away with saying "I am with you till the end of time" but he is a special case, since he exists in all times.
Sentences don't literally "express meaning," you assign meaning to them.
Terrapin, edible turtle, I am not altogether happy about your view that sentences don't literally "express meaning". Granted, we are reading abstract symbols grouped into words into sentences, and the symbols just sit there waiting for a reader, hearer, or clairvoyant. But the author picked particular words grouped into unique sentences. The author expressed something, and that something is carried in the sentence. Arbitrarily assigning meaning gets us... where?
The author expressed something, and that something is carried in the sentence. Arbitrarily assigning meaning gets us... where?
The sentence is really just a set of marks on paper, or a computer screen, or sounds that someone is making, or hand movements, etc. We don't arbitrarily assign meaning, but the meaning isn't literally in the marks, sounds, motions, etc. The meaning is in our heads.
StreetlightDecember 08, 2018 at 23:14#2350000 likes
Reply to Wallows It doesn't. It just raises stupid non-problems mistaken for philosophical ones.
It doesn't. It just raises stupid non-problems mistaken for philosophical ones.
But, if the sentence, "I love you more than words can say." is self-referential although indirectly, then it's a philosophical issue, no?
StreetlightDecember 08, 2018 at 23:19#2350060 likes
Only the naive and the philosophical think that 'I love you more than words can say' expresses a statement about the relationship between words and one's love. One actually has to dumb oneself down to treat it like that, as most in this thread seem to have done.
Only the naive and the philosophical think that 'I love you more than words can say' expresses a statement about the relationship between words and one's love. One actually has to dumb oneself down to treat it like that, as most in this thread seem to have done.
Then if we could start with a clean slate, how would you have commented on the superficial problem that that sentence poses in your view?
StreetlightDecember 08, 2018 at 23:24#2350100 likes
As an example of how not to conduct philosophy, perhaps.
But, @Banno thinks the sentence in question has something to tell us about how we use language.
StreetlightDecember 08, 2018 at 23:35#2350190 likes
Yes, Banno rightly cottons on to the statement as a performance, and dispenses, rightly, with the trash about the limits of language and paradoxes and self-reference and other miscellany.
I wish I did! Maybe someone could persuade @Paul to open source that database. He still has it. I doubt Porat or whoever was the accomplice on killing the old PF would even care if such a triviality happened.
Reply to StreetlightX Oh, StreetlightX, that's sooo cute, you used a quote from "Guess How Much I Love You" by Sam McBratney and Anita Jeram. Did your caretaker read it to you when you were still just a small bulb on the corner?
"I love you up to the moon," said Little Nutbrown Hare.
"Oh, that's far," said Big Nutbrown Hare. "That is very, very far." Big Nutbrown Hare settled Little Nutbrown Hare into his bed of leaves.
He leaned over and kissed him goodnight. Then he lay down close by and whispered with a smile, "I love you to the moon and back."
Note how the Big Hare is modeling good male parenting behaviors, as well as raising astro-engineering problems.
Philosophy is everywhere.
Don't sneer too much -- they've sold 28,000,000 copies of the book.
StreetlightDecember 09, 2018 at 01:21#2350770 likes
Comments (95)
It strikes me as casual barstool "philosophy" with no definitive answer that's likely to invite a lot of attempts at humour rather than being a serious philosophical issue that you're puzzled about.
But if I'm wrong and it develops in an unexpectedly positive direction, I'll move it back
Innocent until proven guilty? Let's give it a chance on the front page at least? Could invite some serious discussion about meaning?
Alright then.
Thank you Baden.
Is it self-referential?
Sentences don't literally "express meaning," you assign meaning to them. And sure, that sentence is easy for many of us to assign meanings to, and to provide alternate wordings of, etc.
Then, is the meaning of "I love you more than words can say." obtained from self-referentiality?
What part of the sentence might you take to be referring to the sentence itself?
In "I love you more than words can say", I'm assuming that it's the "than words can say" part. The words obviously being the words of the sentence itself, including all the words listed in a common dictionary.
Not words in general?
Well, that includes the words in the sentence itself, no?
Well, sure, those are words, too. So then you'd say that any sentence about language, words in general is self-referential?
Well, sure. But, do you have any example in mind?
"Linguistics is the scientific study of language" for example.
It doesn't appear to be self-referential in the same manner that "I love you more than words can say."
Is it?
I don't know if intentionality is a factor here, as in with "love"?
No, because it is a statement of inequality, just like saying - 'I am taller than that anthill'. If it were a statement of equality it might be self-referential.
Another example might be 'I am heavier than this scale can measure'. It is not self-referential. It is really just saying something about the limitations of the scale.
Scale <-> words.
But, intentions have no measure of equality. Do they? They're purely qualitative, with no quantitative measure.
So then simply referring to language or words when there are language or words in the sentence probably isn't sufficient for something to be self-referential
I'm not sure. It seems to me that to talk about intentionalities in the manner of being of greater significance/meaning than "what words can say" seems quite self-referential to me.
At the start, though, we type, "The Internet contains much more text than this computer will be able to."
Is that self-referential?
No, because there's no room for ambiguity and vagueness to fill in there as in the case with qualitative aspects of the intentionality of "love" in the sentence posited in the OP. I feel as though half of the meaning of the sentence is expressed in its ambiguity and vagueness.
Why would ambiguity/vagueness have something to do with self-referentiality, though?
I don't know. That's just one component of the meaning of the sentence, is what I meant. Self-referentiality, the other.
Yes; but I refer you back to what @andrewk said. Namely, the sentence achieves inequality in the case of the Commodore 64. In the case of the intentionality of love, we cannot achieve a state of 'inequality' due to the vagueness and ambiguity of the intentionality or subject of 'love'.
Philosophy is serious, and one ought not have any fun while philosophising. If it is funny, it is not philosophy.
..says how much I love you, and yet does so in words...
No, I'm just a student relishing in old wisdom.
What do you think about what andrewk said? Here's it again:
Quoting andrewk
I'd say we build meaning rather than assign it.
Well, no it's not like that, because that sentence is about anthills, while the other is about words.
It's not a direct self-reference, but "language cannot express my love for you" is an expression of my love for you, in language.
So it can't be read directly, but nor is it metaphorical.
So it puts the lie to the notion that language expresses some inner belief; and it puts the lie to the notion that language cannot express what is beyond or outside of language.
The use to which language is put in "I love you more than words can say" transcends language.
And yet you said it.
But, self-referentiality plays a role in expressing its meaning, no?
We might not be saying anything different there (as long as you're thinking of it as an individual feat)
The meaning, so far as that term has any meaning, is found in the doing, which for language cannot be an individual activity.
The meaning is not assigned. It often happens that one says something that means something other than might have been intended.
So I am not sure we do agree.
That entails the sentence itself, doesn't it?
Then it's a matter of scope, no?
So, if I say, "I hate you more than anything."
Is it the same type of expression as "I love you more than words can say."?
Love belongs to the form of life rather than the sentence. A lossy presentation is a feature of every definite proposition.
Hmm. I think it's quite a strong thing to say; but, then again all you need is love...
Anyway, one applies the universal quantifier to its meaning, while the other is seemingly (in)directly self-referential.
You tell me.
It actually shows very little, if anything at all. It says "I love you more than words can say". And this is really a meaningless comparison as andrewk points out, the scale is inept. Words really can't say a whole lot about love, love is demonstrated by actions. So what words can say about love is really just an anthill compared to the mountain which love is. And saying "I love you more than..." is an action which only shows the tiniest part, if any (assuming the person speaks the truth), of one's true love.
Does intention need to be part of analysing the sentence? I feel I'm missing a link there somewhere.
I wonder about the self-referentiality. We know that a logical language cannot allow unrestricted reference to all its components because that allows the construction of Russell-type sentences that are syntactically valid yet lead to contradictions. So the language itself would be inconsistent. But it is not clear to me that such contradictions necessarily arise from allowing restricted reference to the language in which sentences are written. Consider for instance if there is a constant symbol in the language's alphabet that denotes the collection of all well-formed sentences that can be written in the language, but there are no symbols by which one can refer to truth or falsity of a sentence in the language. I cannot see how one would construct a Russell-type contradiction from that, yet perhaps it would allow expression of the sentence in the OP - assuming the language contains a grammar for expressing feelings, which seems a much harder ask regardless of self-referentiality.
I really don't know about expressing feelings in a formal language. For instance, does 'I love you more than words can say' really tell us anything? To me it seems to say there are no combinations of words I can say that could evoke in you the feeling that I am feeling - that would allow you to see that feeling. Could we not say the same about any feeling, ie any quale. Taking the usual example, we could say 'words cannot express to you the experience I have when I look at this piece of paper that we both say is "red" '. All it is doing is pointing at the incommunicability of qualia. If we accept that, is there any difference between the incommunicability of a powerful feeling like overpowering infatuation, and that of a banal feeling like looking at a piece of red paper? Perhaps both the statement about my love and the one about my experience of red are both just ordinary instances of the general statement 'qualia are incommunicable'.
According to what I've read, yes. Most certainly.
Because intentionality is the referent for meaning to obtain?
Yes.
Alright then.
Quoting Banno
Alright then.
Quoting Wallows
For there to be a limit, there must be that which is beyond the limit, and to speak of the limit is to point at 'whereof one cannot speak'. My world is limited, but my love surpasses the limit, as it surpasses myself. One speaks, obviously, within the limits of language. And at the limit, necessarily one points to what is beyond the limit, not always in the paradox of negation, but as a map of old had an area beyond the known and called it 'unexplored territory.' Words cannot tell what lies in unexplored territory, until we go and explore it.
This is the sentiment of young love. We oldies have explored a bit, and tend to say, "I love you like chips love salt, like shit loves a fan, like a war loves corpses, like a leopard loves spots", and so on. Knowing that it is both extravagant and inadequate.
Oh I like that, it's poetry waiting to be written ... love, the unexplored territory, let's go explore it. Almost makes me feel young again, and, in my opinion it holds a lot more potential than the old cliché, "I love you more than words can say".
You might like it, or you might not. The old maps also used to say "Here be dragons".
Right, we don't agree then. Meaning is an individual mental event (or series of events). On my view, as something mental, it can't be made public/third-person observable.
Meaning is not the same as a definition. Meaning is a matter of thinking about things so that there's an associative connection.
You ruined the moment! When anything looks so good, there always has to be something bad hiding behind it. It's that duck-rabbit syndrome. The duck looks so happy and lovable, while the rabbit looks mean and ready to attack. Why did you show me the rabbit?
But, we're talking about emotions and intent. Is this another case of having a huge giant beetle in a box, and saying that it is so awesome to have?
How does that alter its meaning?
I don't think so. Well I suppose if you declare the existence of dragons having not explored, then it is in a sense. But if you live the ongoing catastrophe that is marriage, you discover that love has little to do with your feelings, and is mainly about wiping other people's bottoms and other forms of taking pains.
Well, I'm under the impression that the meaning in "I love you more than words can say." is extra-syntactic. The map is not the territory; but, I've already supposed that nothing in the territory is illustrative of how I feel about some person.
Oh. Then it's a beetle.
If you really loved me more than words could say, you would say nothing, would you not? Since you attempted to quantify your love for me, I have to assume that you do not love with more than words can say. And after all I've done for you!
"I love you" is meaningful, "I will love you until the day I die" is meaningful. "I will love you as long as you are beautiful; after that, forget it" is meaningful. A bit too frank and honest, but meaningful. "I will love you forever" is highly doubtful, because you are not going to live forever, and even if you did, I don't expect to be around forever to check up on whether you are fulfilling your claim. Jesus can get away with saying "I am with you till the end of time" but he is a special case, since he exists in all times.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Terrapin, edible turtle, I am not altogether happy about your view that sentences don't literally "express meaning". Granted, we are reading abstract symbols grouped into words into sentences, and the symbols just sit there waiting for a reader, hearer, or clairvoyant. But the author picked particular words grouped into unique sentences. The author expressed something, and that something is carried in the sentence. Arbitrarily assigning meaning gets us... where?
Cheers!
Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave my heart into my mouth.
The sentence is really just a set of marks on paper, or a computer screen, or sounds that someone is making, or hand movements, etc. We don't arbitrarily assign meaning, but the meaning isn't literally in the marks, sounds, motions, etc. The meaning is in our heads.
But, if the sentence, "I love you more than words can say." is self-referential although indirectly, then it's a philosophical issue, no?
Then if we could start with a clean slate, how would you have commented on the superficial problem that that sentence poses in your view?
So, it's trifle irrelevancy? I hold the view that the sentence in mind has import towards the philosophy of language.
But, @Banno thinks the sentence in question has something to tell us about how we use language.
I hope it has.
How so?
I wish I did! Maybe someone could persuade @Paul to open source that database. He still has it. I doubt Porat or whoever was the accomplice on killing the old PF would even care if such a triviality happened.
"I love you up to the moon," said Little Nutbrown Hare.
"Oh, that's far," said Big Nutbrown Hare. "That is very, very far." Big Nutbrown Hare settled Little Nutbrown Hare into his bed of leaves.
He leaned over and kissed him goodnight. Then he lay down close by and whispered with a smile, "I love you to the moon and back."
Note how the Big Hare is modeling good male parenting behaviors, as well as raising astro-engineering problems.
Philosophy is everywhere.
Don't sneer too much -- they've sold 28,000,000 copies of the book.
Feels like the poet is mailing it in.