Talk:Ineffability

message: Regarding this quote
"# A square with 3 sides, the pre-big bang universe, or any other illogical proposition" 
could you put a source for why a pre-big bang universe is illogical? I really want to understand that because most of the explanations about a pre-big bang universe are running away from the question or saying it doesn't matter. I want to know why a pre-big bang universe is on the same level of a square with 3 sides.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.222.188 (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This?

message: Why should anything that is not possible to explain be taboo, not only that but something that cannot be described cannot be taboo if there is no way to discribe it.  How would anyone know what was taboo if they have no idea what your talking about?
I can understand Ineffability be taboo 'or' impossible to explain, but not 'and'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.134.84 (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Taboo and unspeakable

message: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." - Ludwig Wittgenstein
I really want to follow this up with "If a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." - Tom Lehrer; but I don't suppose it would actually be relevant to the article. Sigh. 
Ajd 07:22, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be expanded into why certain things are ineffable - ineffability in various cultures etc. Secretlondon 15:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: I object to the idea that "Voldemort" in the Harry Potter books is ineffable.  If people in the story *would* say the word, it would identify precisely what is said.  Thus, there is nothing ineffable about it.  Are the authors of this wiki word suggesting that the N-word is ineffable? or the F-word?  I think that the societal pressure to make words unsaid is a crazy business that the Harry Potter books lampoon.  --Enkido 20:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voldemort and other villians from fiction. 

message: Currently, the main section of this article is "Things said to be ineffable."  That is not a proper standard for inclusion on a list of what is ineffable.  We should be trying to identify that which is truly ineffable.  Or, at least, there should be two sections, each devoted to the separate meanings given the word.  This, the two-part definition from dictionary.com:
1. incapable of being expressed or described in words; inexpressible: ineffable joy.  
2. not to be spoken because of its sacredness; unutterable: the ineffable name of the deity.
In either case, I do not think that fictional villians or superstitious non-named words would qualify.  "Macbeth" not being spoken backstage in theatres is not a matter of ineffability, imho. --Enkido 16:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Things incapable of being expressed are incapable of being expressed because that's how language works. You can not experience another person's sensations, so they can't properly label them. You can only understand something you can perceive or deduct from previous sensations -- words are labels, not something magical. How those labels are resolved depends on the (listening) individual's experience -- the word "yellow" only means something to someone who learned to use the word as a label for something. It's basic linguistics / media theory. This whole article is too mysticistic for my taste -- 62.143.100.92 14:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ideas that are ineffable are often also mystical.  I don't think the article is overally mystical, it's just describing mystical ideas, as it should. Hugh2323 (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sections for ineffable 

message: The list of ineffable villains has been removed, and while it is often an over-used ploy, one of them does fit the description. Yawgmoth from Magic: The Gathering is a 'being' that could be said to be ineffible. "I exist at all time, yet I exist at no time." He cannot be fully comprehended as a being, although he was once a human. He is also multiple entities, that are all a collective conscious that uses "we" to describe actions to itself. I am having a hard time describing him, because, you guessed it. It is my humble oppinion that Yawgmoth could be added to the list of things that are ineffable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.253.240 (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ineffable villains.

message: These don't appear to me to be examples of ineffability.Apeman 05:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move "Things said to be unutterable because of fear" to "Taboo"?

message: is that too subjective for wikipedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.237.222 (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: love

message: What the hell is a catrice of Spann?
Theoryofevrythng (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's something I'm removing. WDavis1911 (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The catrices of Spann

message: This section should either be deleted or seriously revised.  The first two entries are from specific works of popular fiction, and thus seem to be out of place amidst the rest of the article about serious philosophy and major religions, and the other says it is "supposedly" the case, but does not specify any sources for the claim despite obviously not being a belief held by most people or religions.
Besides, the beginning of the section specifies that it is actually not ineffable anyway.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.180.12 (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "things too disastrous to be spoken aloud" section 

message: I think this section just lends itself to be super subjective, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Zaya (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of "Things said to be ineffable"