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

I agree. I said:

— Fooloso4

The problem of a language that is private is that it cannot convey meaning ... Language is a shared, public activity. — Fooloso4

But I was responding to the question in the OP:

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. I brought up the example of games for this reason. It is a game that no one else can play. Language games, on the other hand, can never be played by private rules, that is, they cannot have a grammar known only to me because no one would not how words were being used and what they meant.

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

Again,I agree. My point about values was:

... the error has already been made if one thinks that for Nietzsche what is at issue is rules of conduct. — Fooloso4

Sure! It actually is a comparison I wish I had made sooner. It's really interesting to think about.

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.



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.



I already covered more or less the same points and asked for a response from Banno; and surprise, surprise!...he didn't respond.

At least you got a response:

Your world is too neat. — Banno

Not a relevant or satisfying one, though...

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

I didn't get into details because there would be many different ways to do it--it just depends on the person's imagination, ingenuity, etc.

Also, we wouldn't necessarily need thousands of words. It might just be a handful of things.

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.

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

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.

Behaving in a systematic, rule-guided way does not appear to be a characteristic he admired. Being admirable, was. — Banno

I am not sure about the first part. He celebrated discipline and "orders of rank." His fight against Christianity took the form of denying the "personal" as a refuge from the world of transactions. He insisted that such a withdrawal was also a transaction. The remarks about the nature of a "bad conscience" focus on how it is used to influence outcomes while acting like it is not acting like that.

I propose looking at what he considered to be evidence in a different light from the conclusions he drew from it.

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

This is a neat rendering. The point of behaving ethically is not to say but to show.

But if that's so, how important are moral rules?

Can we Do without them?

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

Okay, it's not private if you interpret that in your weird behaviourist way which has the obvious massive failing of not being able to rightly distinguish between someone just acting as though such-and-such, on the one hand, and genuine cases, on the other.

Kinda wondering what the puppy did? :wink: — Aadee

He was a behaviourist.

That's it. Nietzsche could have no criteria for correctness in his moral principles. — Banno

False. They could be correct or incorrect by his own standard. You seem to be merely begging the question by assuming the necessity of a different standard, whether that standard is relative to Banno's standard or relative to "an objective standard", which in practice amount to the same thing. It's no coincidence that Banno judges kicking puppies to be wrong, and that he also almost certainly thinks that kicking puppies being wrong is part of an objective moral standard. What would a moral objectivist who judged kicking puppies to be right think in this regard? Hmm, I wonder...

It reminds me of what Xenophanes said:

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.

Obviously, the Ethiopians, the Thracians, the hypothetical oxen, the hypothetical horses, the hypothetical lions, and in fact everyone but Banno, are all simply wrong. Banno has godlike impartiality here.

Speaking of Nietzsche, didn't he say a thing or too about moral prejudice, and the prejudice of philosophers? That's a good quote, too.

While philosophers generally would like to proclaim their objectivity and disinterestedness, their instincts and prejudices are usually what inform them.

But, of course, we know that Banno denies this criticism on a superficial basis because I'm using the word "objective".

There can't be private criteria for the private rule because? — Terrapin Station

Because Banno says so. I think that that's his argument. Perfectly reasonable, no?

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

Wait. Is this a joke? It's the former, obviously. The rest of what you said about Slav ancestry and an observer is irrelevant.

Isn't this just like: suppose there's a cup in the cupboard, but we can't see it. Is there a cup in the cupboard? (Yes).

How about a beetle in a box? A puppy in my torture chamber?

Yes, yes, and yes again. I named the puppy "Little Banno", by the way.

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

What do you think might make it impossible?

While they weren't languages of just one person, we do have examples of languages that no one has been able to crack yet:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/12884/8-ancient-writing-systems-havent-been-deciphered-yet

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.

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

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.

So, again, Banno's suggested incompatibility between a private language being impossible and Nietzche's approach to morality comes from nowhere. And even Banno has suggested that Nietzche's approach to morality has nothing to do with rules at all ("private" or not), which makes the OP even more nonsensical.

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 encryption of English (or any other language)? Would require a perfect memory but in principle I think it would count.

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?

There's an assumption something like "it's not a language if it can't be used just the same way over time (from an objective perspective)." Where in the world is that assumption coming from?

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 I won't understand the word "Fpgyamy" when I re-read it.

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

One possibility is that you do understand it when you read it the later time, but you assign "Joe" to it (or whatever). In other words, just because you assign a different referent to it doesn't imply that you don't understand it.

But that's irrelevant anyway. Why isn't it a language if you don't understand it on the later occasion? Where is the requirement coming from that in order to be a language, you have to understand it in perpetuity?

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?

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.

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?

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, but now that they don't mean anything to anyone they're just random scribbles and sounds.

Yes. They were words when they meant something to the people who used them, — Michael

Sure. So that the private language creator doesn't remember, so they can't understand, some word in their private language at a later date doesn't imply that there wasn't (and so can not be) a private language.

One big problem with the usual formulations of the private language argument is that they focus on a private language not being able to be "correct." Well, languages aren't correct or not period. There are conventions, but it's not correct to be conventional/incorrect to be unconventional.

Per my analysis of understanding, can there be an expressed private language (where the expression is ever made public) that can't be understood by someone else? No. But understanding on my analysis doesn't imply having the same meanings in mind. (And it's important to remember that on my view, meanings are different than definitions; meaning is a type of mental activity that's not identical to sounds we can make, marks we can make, things we can point to (taking something to be pointing requires mental activity in itself at any rate))

Although actually I think my one-time pad suggestion is a load of rubbish.

Although actually I think my one-time pad suggestion is a load of rubbish. — Michael

I don't want to speculate why. Why would you say it's a load of rubbish?

Acting as just believing something as compared to genuine cases of believing in something i assume. It is not the weird behaviorist way but the weird "information universe" way of looking a things. Anything that can be observed or in any other way deduced through any information gathering method, means or device is simply information identified.

There is no reason a person might not have an internal language that the individual uses to manage and process information. Of course externalizing would or does require translation to a.language/format that can be understood by the target audience.

When a person adopts any set of internal values what they are actually doing is determining a structure for identifying and using information (especially how to use this information)- and particularly information that fits within the structure and confines of that determining value set. Morals as being referred to in this discussion are no more then a variation on the same basic concept, and can be created or adopted through any number of information gathering means...IE internalizing from information received directly like reading or information received that initiates a response from the earlier emotional information management system, among many others. The universe does not discriminate between "good or bad, right or wrong information" it is just information. Conscious beings however tend to seek out information in a way and that fits in or supports the ways and means of information gathering that has been successful to that point in time. Often expressed as belief systems. Information received or being received by genetic information sources all the way to the confines of a morality structure influence this, as well as continuing feedback from the universe including the feedback of other conscious beings. Even the scientific method is an example of this...
information gathering through the use of the scientific method has been very successful at finding or determining and therefore predicting to a very high degree information relating to our universe. It is still limiting in that it only accepts information that fits within its structure, confines and format. Does the scientist truly believe in the scientific method or does he just portray it?

My point is that it does not matter, and that as we all inhabit our own separate realities, impossible to determine anyway. What does matter is the behaviors, methods, even the info being search/offered are successful and can be provided in a format acceptable to the society the person is a part of.

So the second part as in understand your post is that a person professing an adherence to a set of morals, religion, ect. that internally the person does not accept itself. This presumably then allows the person to access information in a way that otherwise would be confined or not be acceptable or could cause a threat that person. Since i believe a primary function of life is to find and use information, the mere threat of a loss/constriction of information is a powerful inducement to externalize the behaviors most conducive for that to not occur. It is impossible to know what exactly Galileo believed or what his internal information management tools were or what role symbolic interactionism could have played out in his survival. What is clear is that the information he was trying to communicate threatened his existence and threatened his ability to continue to gather/manage information in a way that had been successful for him to that point. Regardless of his internal belief system Galileo spent the rest of his life exhibiting the behaviors and presenting information in a format that fit the expectations and confines of the larger society he was part of. Ultimately to the detriment of the society as its own confines made it unable to readily assimilate and use the info Galileo was providing. In the end though the information Galileo was presenting changed the society.

The weird Information Universe.

Do you believe that one person could create a complex alternate private language without using the public language they already speak? 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.

The point is that if the familiar public language were employed in the creation of an alternate language, that alternate language would not be "private" in the sense stipulated by the so-called private language argument.

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.

Are you saying that a human can't be self-directed?

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?

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

All examples of rule-following will not be subject to exactly the same logic, that is there is no essence of rule-following just as there is no essence of game-playing. So, let's just stick to the example you gave. You have decided to follow the rule that you will tailgate a car if the numbers on the plate sum to a prime. You also knew (leaving aside the question of how this could be possible) that all the cars you tailgated were driven by people of Slavic ancestry, and you ask yourself "which rule was I following?".

Well, the answer is given by your answer to the question "what will I do when I encounter a car that satisfies the number criterion but not the ancestry criterion, or vice versa". What you decide you will do will show which rule you were following, and if you had decided to follow the number rule, then the answer to what you will do (provided you keep following that intention) is obvious. Do you want to say that you cannot decide to follow a rule?