I am puzzling over what it might mean to be self-directed. It can't be following a rule understood only by oneself. — Banno
There's a slight ambiguity here. There's a difference between a rule that only Nietzsche understands and a rule that only Nietzsche can understand. The former isn't analogous to a private language as a private language is a language that only one person can understand and the latter isn't anything that Nietzsche claimed to be the case. — Michael
Why can following a rule not be understood only by oneself (as opposed to understandable only to oneself)? Explain your reasons for thinking that (if you do think that) and we might get somewhere. — Janus
Do you believe that one person could create a complex alternate private language without using the public language they already speak? — Janus
I don't believe such a thing would be possible, but as I said, there would be no point arguing over it, since the possibility or impossibility of such a thing cannot be definitively demonstrated. — Janus
On my account of language, though, arguably language is private period--or at least important aspects of it are. — Terrapin Station
I am puzzling over what it might mean to be self-directed. It can't be following a rule understood only by oneself. And acting in an arbitrary or accidental way is not acting on direction.
This is not too far form free will, either. If one follows a rule is one acting freely? — Banno
So this gets back around to, in my mind, on just what we mean by private or public -- because a private rule by Kant is still, in principle, articulatable (oi, I butcher the language so), even if it is not shared. And though it be articulatable we can have no behavioristic criteria for determining if an act is moral, though we can check if it follows the rule. — Moliere
For your account, start simple. I have already said that the individual that wishes to produce a completely independent private language could draw or even visualize the objects that the common nouns of the new language are to refer to, but how would they specify what pronouns or articles, for instance, are to refer to? — Janus
Morality has no bearing on a non-volitional action. If one can make decisions, why couldn't one follow one's own rules? One could keep track of the rule by writing it down and verify conformance by recording some sign. These are things we routinely do anyway. — frank
Becoming involves choosing one's own standards — Banno
Why couldn't they simply think about what every symbol of their devising is going to refer to? — Terrapin Station
Will that thinking be done in their native language? If not, then how else? — Janus
Sure. But was she moral responsible? The family of the casualty thought so. — 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.