Vizzini: Inconceivable!

Inigo: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

What did Inigo mean by this?

(Don’t laugh, this is serious.)

The statement can be interpreted in two ways:

  1. I do not think [it means what you think it means].
  2. I do not [think it means] what you [think it means].

Or, in other words:

  1. It is my belief that your definition of “inconceivable” is incorrect.
  2. I have a belief as to what “inconceivable” means; you have a belief as to what it means; and our two definitions disagree.

I’ve wondered about this for years. You might think it’s immaterial, because they both amount to the same thing: Vizzini is using the word “inconceivable” incorrectly, according to Inigo. But the two interpretations have subtle philosophical differences.

By way of illustration, suppose Vizzini defines inconceivable as “my mind could not have conceived of this possibility”, and Inigo defines it as “my mind could not have conceived of this possibility”. Both use the same definition. However, Inigo believes that Vizzini’s definition is something more like “this state of affairs disappoints me”.

Therefore, the statement “I do not think [it means what you think it means]” is true, because Inigo’s definition is not the same as what Inigo believes to be Vizzini’s definition. However, the statement “I do not [think it means] what you [think it means]” is false, because Inigo and Vizzini are using the same definition.

But this scenario is ruled out by the fact that Vizzini would be using the word incorrectly according to his own definition.

Consider another hypothetical. Suppose Vizzini and Inigo both know the correct definition of the word, but they have different philosophies on hyperbole, and Vizzini is more lax about using words in a hyperbolic sense. They have a disagreement, but the disagreement is not about the meaning of the word.

In this hypothetical, “I do not think [it means what you think it means]” is true—Inigo does indeed hold the (false) belief that Vizzini’s definition is wrong. But “I do not [think it means] what you [think it means]” is false, because in fact both parties use the same definition.

Let’s move to one final hypothetical. Suppose Vizzini defines inconceivable as “any activity that is performed by a person wearing all black clothing and a black mask”. For example, if a man in black climbs a cliff without using a rope, that would be inconceivable.1 If a man in black does something mundane like eating a piece of bread, that would be inconceivable. But if a woman in white2 were to climb up a cliff without a rope, that would not be inconceivable.

And suppose Inigo doesn’t know that’s how Vizzini uses the word (because that is a very strange definition). As in the previous hypothetical, Inigo believes that Vizzini defines inconceivable as “this state of affairs disappoints me”.

Now return to the two interpretations of Inigo’s statement. “I do not think [it means what you think it means]” is true. Inigo thinks Vizzini thinks it means “this disappoints me”, so the bracketed statement “[it means what you think it means]” resolves to “[it means ‘this disappoints me’]”; and Inigo doesn’t think that’s what the word means.

Interpretation #2, “I do not [think it means] what you [think it means]”, is also true. Inigo’s definition does not equal Vizzini’s definition. However, Inigo does not have knowledge that this statement is true. He has a justified true belief, his justification being that Vizzini keeps using the word incorrectly. But the justification is false. This is an example of the classic Gettier problem that is one of the most-studies puzzles in epistemology.

Across these three hypothetical edge cases, we have seen that the first interpretation of Inigo’s statement is consistently true. The second interpretation can be false, and it can also be true-but-not-knowledge. Therefore, given the problems with the second interpretation, I conclude that the first interpretation is the correct one:

I do not think [it means what you think it means].

There are conceivable scenarios in which the first interpretation is false and the second is true, but they require strange suppositions like “Inigo has incorrect beliefs about what his own beliefs are”. I don’t think there’s any reasonable scenario that makes the first interpretation false.3

I’ve been wondering about this for nearly 20 years. It was inconceivable that I would ever find an answer, but through some hard work and careful thinking, I’ve finally resolved the mystery.

Posted on Nov 21, 2025

Notes

  1. This is a slight misrepresentation of what happened; I’m taking some liberties to simplify the story. In the movie, Vizzini cut the rope leading up the Cliffs of Insanity, and then found it “inconceivable” when the man in black—who had been climbing the rope—didn’t fall. The man in black then started slowly free-climbing the cliff, but Vizzini did not say “inconceivable” in response to this.

    In the book, Vizzini did find it “inconceivable” that the man in black could continue to climb (page 102), but Inigo didn’t say that line in the book. ↩

  2. or a non-binary person in green ↩

  3. A quote from the book supports my thesis. On page 103, Vizzini argues that he has been using the word correctly, that the man in black is not following them, and that it is inconceivable that he could be following them. His argument seemingly renders the first interpretation true and the second interpretation false.

    The exact quote from the book:

    “I have the keenest mind that has ever been turned to unlawful pursuits,” [Vizzini] began, “so when I tell you something, it is not guesswork; it is fact! And the fact is that the man in black is not following us. A more logical explanation would be that he is simply an ordinary sailor who dabbles in mountain climbing as a hobby who happens to have the same general final destination as we do. That certainly satisfies me and I hope it satisfies you. In any case, we cannot take the risk of his seeing us with the princess, and therefore one of you must kill him.”

    However, the textual evidence is muddled by the fact that Vizzini says “Inconceivable!” after the observation that the man in black is climbing the cliff, not specifically that he is following them; which suggests that Vizzini’s definition is wrong after all, and the second interpretation of Inigo’s statement is not ruled out. ↩