The issue is that these "private" rules aren't private in the sense that Wittgenstein meant by the word. A private language for Wittgenstein is a language that nobody else can understand, whereas anyone can learn what it is the Übermensch values and check for consistency in his behaviour. — Michael
— Fooloso4
The problem of a language that is private is that it cannot convey meaning ... Language is a shared, public activity. — Fooloso4
So could Nietzsche follow a rule that was understood only by himself? — Banno
This "transvaluation of values" just doesn't seem to have anything to do with a private language, and so this discussion seems confused from the start. — Michael
... the error has already been made if one thinks that for Nietzsche what is at issue is rules of conduct. — Fooloso4
Your world is too neat. — Banno
You haven't answered as to how you could overcome the difficulties involved in establishing a private language in the strong sense I outlined in the passage you responded to. — Janus
They could simply come up with novel letters or other symbols or sounds, or even just mentally picture the same--it wouldn't have to be expressed to anyone else, and then think about what they're going to use the letters, sounds, etc. to stand for. They wouldn't have to translate that into some other natural language, though they could if they wanted to, perhaps. And it could be done for any level of abstraction or concrete reference. — Terrapin Station
Behaving in a systematic, rule-guided way does not appear to be a characteristic he admired. Being admirable, was. — Banno
For one, freedom -- under a certain conception of freedom we do not follow rules. So by describing actions as being not-articulatable we could be saying that the ethical is that place in life where language can no longer operate -- that its in the showing, and not the saying, where our actions are free insofar that they do not follow a rule. — Moliere
no, your rule was not private when you did not kick the puppy and it became an external behavior. morals and rules are internal in that they are unique to that individual reality but exhibited by behavior externally. — Aadee
Kinda wondering what the puppy did? :wink: — Aadee
That's it. Nietzsche could have no criteria for correctness in his moral principles. — Banno
Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and dark. Thracians that theirs are blue-eyed and red-haired. If oxen and horses and lions had hands and were able to draw with their hands and do the same things as men, then horses would draw the shapes of gods to look like horses, and oxen to look like oxen, and each would make the gods’ bodies have the same shape as they themselves had.
While philosophers generally would like to proclaim their objectivity and disinterestedness, their instincts and prejudices are usually what inform them.
There can't be private criteria for the private rule because? — Terrapin Station
Suppose I decide that I will tailgate any car such that the numbers on its plate add to a prime. — Banno
So was the rule I followed that their number plates added to a prime, or that their ancestry was Slav? — Banno
I'm not convinced that any of what you suggest would be possible, except maybe for the most rudimentary language. In any case the possibility cannot be tested, so there would be no point arguing about it. — Janus
But I was responding to the question in the OP: — Fooloso4
So could Nietzsche follow a rule that was understood only by himself? — Banno
Assuming that Nietzsche is following a rule we might not know what that rule is simply by knowing what he values. The fact that no one else can understand it does not prevent him from understanding and following it. — Fooloso4
What would be the reason that an individual couldn't devise a language in the vein of those?
Will we ever crack them? I don't think there's any way to know the answer to that. Hence my comments about the untenability of the "in principle" criterion above. — Terrapin Station
Perhaps there could be a language that works as a one-time-pad translation of English (or any other language)? Would require a perfect memory but in principle I think it would count. — Michael
Why would memory even be relevant to the issue though? — Terrapin Station
Let's say I use a one-time pad to encrypt the word "Michael" as "Fpgyamy". If I don't remember this then when I won't understand the word "Fpgyamy" when I read it. — Michael
Imagine that some virus strikes Earth that rapidly spreads and gives everyone a cognitive fog. A symptom of it is that there are many words in all natural languages that no one understands any longer.
Did we not have languages in that case? — Terrapin Station
These "words" would no longer be words in that language; just random scribbles and sounds. — Michael
That's fine, but weren't they words in a language prior? — Terrapin Station
Yes. They were words when they meant something to the people who used them, — Michael
Although actually I think my one-time pad suggestion is a load of rubbish. — Michael
What happens when you encounter a vehicle with numbers that add to a prime, and whose driver is not of Slav descent? What will you do? In other words, the rule you are following is the one you think you are following. — Janus
Well, then we would see. But your conclusion does not follow. One can think one is following a rule and yet not be. What is going on in ones head will not suffice to demonstrate rule following. — Banno
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.