We work together to build the use of a word. — Banno
implying that all our words are subjectively invented.
— Banno
Originally, they were. All of them. No words in Nature.
— Mww
SO... your claim is that originally there were words used only by one person... a private language? — Banno
What do you think they did with these words? — Banno
What function could they have had — Banno
the individual grunted in a particular way each time they saw a particularly delicious fruit? — Banno
they grunted, and others understood this as indicative of ripe fruit. — Banno
It’s just that mine comes before yours. If you’d just grant the chronology, it’d be a done deal. — Mww
... and there's the expected ad hoc hypothesis.
Ok, that renders your view irrefutable; you've just defined pain as a private sensation.
The twist is, you cannot therefore use the privacy of pain as evidence for subjectivism - at least, not without a vicious circularity. — Banno
I cannot experience anybody else's pain and nobody else can experience my pain.
— Luke
The expression “I feel your pain” can only be figurative. In empathy one can only feel one’s own pain, even if it is expressed or felt for others.
— Luke
Imagine we agree about this. You me and Banno. How is that not intersubjective? — unenlightened
Imagine I don't think I have my own pain, and Banno thinks he has your pain. Are these our private subjectivities, about which no disagreement is possible? — unenlightened
On the other hand, our existence as individuals with individual experiences, pains, perceptions and viewpoints is also evident. — Luke
The language of their thoughts isn't native to them originally. They learned it through interaction. — frank
But think about someone who's locked-in (they're conscious, but can't signal out in any way). — frank
If I have a pain and you have a pain, they're unlikely to be the same whole experience, granted. — Isaac
I don't see where you end with with subjective meanings. — Isaac
that you can only have your pains and I can only have mine because we are two different people. — Luke
We don't say that I can only have my phone and you can only have yours, either. — Luke
I consider subjectivity to be somewhat synonymous with personhood and its traits, such as conscious awareness, rational thought, sensory perception, and the ability to feel pain. This is how our being two different people/persons relates to subjectivity. — Luke
you cannot therefore use the privacy of pain as evidence for subjectivism - at least, not without a vicious circularity. — Banno
Plus....here we go again with the goalposts; I never said words used by only one person. I said words subjectively invented, which implies one person, but does not imply use, that being merely a possible consequent. While it may not make sense to invent a word then not use it, that doesn’t mean the use is necessary because of invention. The use is necessary for something else, which, again, presupposes the invention. — Mww
Locked in.Locked-in. Like....deaf-mute? Incapacitated somehow? Dunno. If he can’t get a signal out, he isn’t going to communicate anything, which makes words and language irrelevant anyway, as far as he’s concerned. — Mww
distinguish between what is potentially comprehensible to others, and what is actually comprehensible to others. — Metaphysician Undercover
But it’s impossible to conceive these conditions anyway, so...... — Mww
What's the PLA's take-away? It's not actually an argument. — frank
It certainly doesn't preclude language use that simply isn't shared with others. — frank
Funny, though, the academic/peer-reviewed argument is that the PLA is nothing but argument, because there are no principles on which it could be grounded as a legitimate dialectical thesis — Mww
Personally, I don’t see why there couldn’t be a comprehensible private language, contra Wittgenstein. Because it’s private, it must have been built by me, so it would only have to be comprehensible to me — Mww
..just like that. — Mww
Could you help me understand this? Isn't it drawing on common sense? — frank
Does "private" mean untranslatable even in principle? — frank
To me, private merely indicates contained in and used by the subject which thinks — Mww
Nevertheless, why would a private language need to be translatable? — Mww
I don't know how to make an untranslatable language. — frank
That dichotomy stipulates that either a language must be public (comprehensible to all), or private (comprehensible to only one person. — Metaphysician Undercover
Pretty much as I see it, yep. — Mww
Yeah, but.....translatable by who? I don’t need my private language translated, and for somebody else to translate means it isn’t private. — Mww
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.