果冻影院

Great question!

Some tools鈥攍ike hammers and wrenches鈥攃an be used in different ways to achieve all sorts of things. Words are tools. So I鈥檓 going to approach your question by considering three different ways of using the word 鈥渋ndescribable鈥�. And these will give me three different answers to your question.

First. We sometimes use 鈥渋ndescribable鈥� in a figurative, exaggerated, way.听
For example: I might say 鈥淲hen I saw her win, I was indescribably happy!鈥� Perhaps I really just intended to convey something like: 鈥淚 was incredibly happy!鈥� In that case, maybe what I said was literally false since I could quite easily have described it. But we know what I mean.
It might help to compare this with someone who says, 鈥淚 was literally over the moon!鈥� Again, this is literally false, but we know what they meant. (And anyway, who said that 鈥渓iterally鈥� must always be understood literally?)

Second. A more subtle case is when we use 鈥渋ndescribable鈥� to indicate that we can鈥檛 be fully precise about something.听
For example: suppose I see a sunset and tell you the next morning 鈥渋t was indescribably beautiful鈥�. I鈥檝e clearly tried to give you some description of the beauty of the sunset. So, am I contradicting myself?

Probably not. I鈥檓 probably saying that the sunset was beautiful, but that I cannot fully convey to you just how beautiful the sunset was, or in what ways it was beautiful. The sentiment here might be something like: 鈥渘o one could appreciate its precise beauty unless they saw it for themselves.鈥� This kind of phrase can convey something profound about the beauty of the sunset, but it still doesn鈥檛 allow you to understand its precise beauty, so there鈥檚 no contradiction.

This sort of use of 鈥渋ndescribable鈥� (or 鈥渋ndescribably鈥�) arises quite often in aesthetics, i.e. in areas where we are discussing either natural or human-made beauty. And that shouldn鈥檛 really be surprising: we shouldn鈥檛 expect that we can always translate (our reactions to) art into words!

Third. The final use of 鈥渋ndescribable鈥� is the murkiest of all, but (for me) the most intriguing. This is when we want to convey that something is fully unthinkable.听
Suppose I tell you: 鈥渢here is an object which is entirely indescribable鈥�. But I don鈥檛 want you to think that I mean 鈥渋ndescribable鈥� in the first sense (i.e. figuratively) or the second sense (i.e. to indicate that a certain level of precision is impossible). So I add: 鈥渋t is absolutely impossible to represent this object at all: no one could possibly think about it, or refer to it, or describe it, in any way whatsoever.鈥�

I am clearly contradicting myself, in some sense. After all: I am trying to say something about this (weird) object, whilst simultaneously insisting that it is impossible for anyone to succeed in saying anything about that object. At the very least, you certainly shouldn't believe what I鈥檝e told you. In fact, for just the same reason, I shouldn鈥檛 believe what I said either. And this generalises: no one should believe that there is an absolutely unrepresentable object.

But that conclusion might seem very strange. Ask yourself: couldn鈥檛 there be some object which is so strange that it is absolutely unrepresentable? In plenty of ways, humans are very limited animals; we鈥檙e just hairless apes who wear shoes. So the idea that we can represent each and every object there is might seem like a bit of a cosmic-scale coincidence.

For what it鈥檚 worth, I do think that everything can be represented, and I don鈥檛 think that this is a cosmic-scale coincidence. But I鈥檇 rather leave you with this puzzle than try to answer it, since I think it鈥檚 one of the most interesting puzzles there is!