You would understand it is incoherent. Indeed, wouldn't understanding something be a prerequisite for knowing it is incoherent?

"I drew a round square."

I can understand what the person is saying. But the concept of a round square is incoherent because by definition a square cannot be round.

My position would be that you didn't actually understand. That nothing understandable was said.

Let's see what the others have to say. :smile:

My position would be that you didn't actually understand. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Every sentence has a sense.

You would understand it is incoherent. Indeed, wouldn't understanding something be a prerequisite for knowing it is incoherent? — DingoJones

I can understand that "a round square" is incoherent by juxtaposing the concepts round and square. I get that.

But I can't understand what a round square is. It's ununderstandable.

If I can say "I understand X" and can at the same time say "X is incoherent," how does that play out? — ZzzoneiroCosm

A hard hat is recommended when standing under anything that does not firmly cohere.

Every sentence has a sense. — Jackson

Is there then no such thing as non-sense?


@Banno. What up. This is right up your alley. :smile:

Is there then no such thing as non-sense? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Wittgenstein talks about nonsense. But I think that means incoherence.

Its not binary, you can both understand the sentence is that incoherent and not understand the incoherent bit at the same time. You are understanding the part that communicates something incoherent and recognizing that what is being communicated is incoherent. Its not either/or.

Its not binary, you can both understand the sentence is that incoherent and not understand the incoherent bit at the same time. You are understanding the part that communicates something incoherent and recognizing that what is being communicated is incoherent. Its not either/or. — DingoJones

Good explanation.

I can understand that "a round square" is incoherent by juxtaposing the concepts round and square. I get that.

But I can't understand what a round square is. It's ununderstandable. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Right, there are two different things to understand. The sentence, and the concept of a round square.

Good explanation — Jackson

Thank you

It has more importance in cosmology, I think, as the Newtonian laws and concept of gravity can be fully demonstrated as being correct to a high level of accuracy in the macro universe and gravity's role in the subatomic universe is also well understood in relation to the electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces yet Quantum Mechanics and gravity seem to be incoherent, in that they won't 'stick' together, they are not cohesive. We need a quantum theory of gravity and we don't have one.

If I can say "I understand X" and can at the same time say "X is incoherent," how does that play out? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Could be from a surrealist play.

Coherence is on a continuum and so is understanding. The drunk cab passenger is incoherent but just coherent enough for the driver to understand what he says. Most of the sentences in Finnegan's Wake are incoherent but critics and readers have understood the book to some degree. It's not completely incomprehensible.

If I can say "I understand X" and can at the same time say "X is incoherent," how does that play out? — ZzzoneiroCosm

If this wouldn’t entirely miss the point of the OP, maybe if the proposition is rephrased then the connection between understanding and coherency might be better expressed, this while better avoiding the possibility of equivocation. I’m thinking into something along the lines of: “That which is incoherent to S cannot be understood by S in due measure.” (This while granting that one can understand what is and is not incoherent to oneself.)

So, the sentence “this claim is false” (or “square circles exist”) can be understood as a grammatically correct sentence - because its syntax is coherent - while the sentence’s content remains not understood due to being incoherent.

Or, someone could understand the allegorical intentions to Ionesco’s play “Rhinoceros” without understanding the play’s underlying system of logic (granting that it has one and that it is nevertheless incoherent to the viewer).

Or, if the implications of dialetheism are found to be incoherent, then one cannot understand them - this despite understanding what dialetheism proposes via grammatically correct sentences.

... But no worries if this doesn't address the OP's concern.

My position would be that you didn't actually understand. That nothing understandable was said. — ZzzoneiroCosm

:up:

Can you expand on what you mean by "incoherent"? And what is it with respect to? Propositions? Arguments? Sentences? Mathematical models? Experimental data?

This thread is a continuation of another thread: I'm trying to link you to it:

Click on ZzzoneiroCosm below. :smile:

I'm not overly interested in this subject but thought it might be fun to hear from the town square:




https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13041/if-i-say-i-understand-x-can-i-at-the-same-time-say-x-is-incoherent — ZzzoneiroCosm

You just linked me to this page.

Check the edit. :smile:

\

Got it.

:up: wasn't sure about the best way to get you there

That thread did little to elucidate anything; the only thing I saw that was relevant was the discussion of what it is "like" to be oneself holistically and whether or not one considers that to be coherent and thus a useful construct.

what it is "like" to be oneself — ToothyMaw

That's the whole bit.

Feel free to take the thread wherever you like. :smile:

If I can say "I understand X" and can at the same time say "X is incoherent," how does that play out? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Well, I don’t think it’s possible to say both at the same time, but it is possible to believe both at the same time. Any action can be interpreted/observed as ‘saying’ one OR the other, and two people at the same time can interpret you saying “X is incoherent” to mean one or the other.

Some people reduce understanding to the coherence of language structure. An understanding of X is constrained by the language concept of X.

it is possible to believe both at the same time. — Possibility

I agree. Believing is easy.

Banno. What up. This is right up your alley. :smile: — ZzzoneiroCosm

If I can say "I understand X" and can at the same time say "X is incoherent," how does that play out? — ZzzoneiroCosm

To understand some puzzle is at least to some extent to place it within a context. You understand circles, and you understand squares, in that you can recognise them, point them out to others, draw them and discuss their various attributes. That's sufficient to bring about puzzlement when someone posits a round square. What you understand by "round" and by "square" do not go together in an obviously coherent fashion.

What's the problem?

What's the problem? — Banno

No problem at all with the above.

The problem arose in the Nagel thread when Jackson said he understood the phrase "what it feels like to be me" but thereafter said it was incoherent.

So the issue is: can X be understood and also be incoherent?