• Banno
    23.1k
    "I love you more than words can say."Wallows

    ..says how much I love you, and yet does so in words...
  • Banno
    23.1k
    ...the philosophical point, contra @Baden, being that it is a showing, not a saying, but with words.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    Are you stalking me? My ancient wisdom, reincarnated in a new forum.Banno

    No, I'm just a student relishing in old wisdom.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    I'm content to be the centre of attention.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    I'm content to be the centre of attention.Banno

    What do you think about what andrewk said? Here's it again:

    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.

    Scale <-> words.
    andrewk
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Sentences don't literally "express meaning," you assign meaning to them.Terrapin Station

    I'd say we build meaning rather than assign it.
  • fdrake
    5.8k
    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.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    just like saying - 'I am taller than that anthill'.andrewk

    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.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    I always love more than words can say.fdrake

    And yet you said it.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    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.Banno

    But, self-referentiality plays a role in expressing its meaning, no?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    I'd say we build meaning rather than assign itBanno

    We might not be saying anything different there (as long as you're thinking of it as an individual feat)
  • Banno
    23.1k
    The self-reference is not directly to the sentence but to the language in whcih the sentence is expressed.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Individual?

    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.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    The self-reference is not directly to the sentence but to the language in whcih the sentence is expressed.Banno

    That entails the sentence itself, doesn't it?
  • Banno
    23.1k
    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.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    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.Banno

    Then it's a matter of scope, no?
  • Shawn
    12.6k


    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."?
  • fdrake
    5.8k


    Love belongs to the form of life rather than the sentence. A lossy presentation is a feature of every definite proposition.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    What do you think?
  • Shawn
    12.6k


    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.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    So, @Banno, 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."?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    12.3k
    ...the philosophical point, contra Baden, being that it is a showing, not a saying, but with words.Banno

    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.
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    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.Wallows
    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'.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    Does intention need to be part of analysing the sentence?andrewk

    According to what I've read, yes. Most certainly.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    Why?andrewk

    Because intentionality is the referent for meaning to obtain?
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    Do you mean intensionality?
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    Do you mean intensionality?andrewk

    Yes.
  • Baden
    15.6k
    Philosophy is serious, and one ought not have any fun while philosophising. If it is funny, it is not philosophy.Banno

    Alright then.

    the philosophical point, contra Baden, being that it is a showing, not a saying, but with words.Banno

    Alright then.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.