I don't know how to make an untranslatable language. — frank

That's pretty much it.

So how could one make a private language - one that could not be translated in principle?

There is considerable discussion of private language - the SEP article provides a good summary. That discussion is pretty much restricted to the exact nature of the argument in Philosophical Investigations - that is. to exegesis. The notion that language is at its core social has few objectors; at least, outside this forum. But look at section 4.1 for what I think is a fair conclusion - particularly the example of playing chess by oneself.

What is salient here is that while chess is a game for two players, it is possible to play it by oneself. What would be absurd would be to conclude that therefore chess must essentially be a game for one player, which is occasionally played by two people - intersubjectively.

The notion that language is at its core social has few objectors; — Banno

Probably because it's not saying much more than that language, like individuality, requires a social setting as a launch pad and touchstone.

So what?

SO...

What is salient here is that while chess is a game for two players, it is possible to play it by oneself. What would be absurd would be to conclude that therefore chess must essentially be a game for one player, which is occasionally played by two people - intersubjectively. — Banno

...which takes us back to the OP...

Well, what are the differences between objectivity and intersubjectivity? — TheMadFool

I see. Doesn't that open you up a little to Banno's complaints that

you cannot therefore use the privacy of pain as evidence for subjectivism - at least, not without a vicious circularity.
— Banno — Isaac

No, because I’m not saying that pain must be private.

You've defined 'subjectivity' in terms that assume the existence of subjective properties (conscious awareness, rational thought, sensory perception, and the ability to feel pain), so we can't then prove something like pain is subjective. It's just in the list there, the list of things you associate with subjectivity. It would be tantamount to saying "pain is subjective because it's in the list of things which are subjective". — Isaac

You were pressing me to explain why pains are subjective but noses are not. I offered an explanation in terms of personhood. A better explanation, more relevant to the OP, might be that the subjective is whatever aggregates to make the “intersubjective”. My view is that it’s individual people.

I should elaborate. When I say “subjectivity is not intersubjective” I don’t mean that in a linguistic sense. Obviously the world “subjective” has a socially constructed meaning. What I mean to say is that, even without any agreement, people still have subjective experiences. That even if no language existed, people wouldn’t suddenly stop experiencing fear or anger. Even if there were no words to call those things.

You sure you want to throw in your lot with a bloke with an eccentric notion of equality, Mww? — Banno

I was agreeing with the gist of his comment as it relates to mine. No more, no less. I didn’t see anything in it having to do with equality.

I accept you agree with Wittgenstein. I agree private language is entirely impractical for intelligible communication, which is language’s only purpose, but do not agree it is impossible to create. I gave two examples of it.

What is salient here is that while chess is a game for two players, it is possible to play it by oneself. What would be absurd would be to conclude that therefore chess must essentially be a game for one player, which is occasionally played by two people - intersubjectively. — Banno

...which takes us back to the OP...

Well, what are the differences between objectivity and intersubjectivity? — TheMadFool — Banno

Interesting. So would you argue that the set of things we declare to be real is largely produced intersubjectively and has the stamp of culture on it?

If you prefer not to answer, that's fine.

No matter how we break up these multi-propped terms, we end up only with individual props which are themseves shared. I don't see where you end with with subjective meanings. — Isaac

I wouldn’t say “subjective meanings” so much as “subjective experiences”. But I think it’s possible to have a public language, about subjective experiences. That’s what intersubjective means (though this thread quickly deviated from the distinction between intersubjective and objective)

You don’t need to have the same experience to talk about something, all you need is to have a similar “structure”.

Say when I look at objects A, B and C I have experiences X, X and Y. When you look at objects A, B and C you have experiences Y, Y and X. Or even Z,Z,R. When we want to communicate these experiences, we would BOTH call A “red” and C “green”.

Different experiences, shared meaning. Because the meaning comes not from the experiences, but their structure, their relationship to other experiences. As long as the structure is the same, we can talk. “Red” isn’t referring to a particular experience, (not a particular X or particular Y) but rather a shared structure (A and B are the same experience but C is different. Doesn’t matter what the actual experience is. Same structure)

Now if someone looking at the same set of objects experiences Z,Z,Z, and he learned that “Things that produce the experience Z are called red” he would be colorblind. In his world there is no distinction between C and B/A. He would look at C and say “this is red” because that’s what he learned to call objects that produce the experience Z. That’s when we know he’s colorblind.

You sure you want to throw in your lot with a bloke with an eccentric notion of equality, Mww? — Banno

Do you really think that upholding the difference between being equal, as two human beings are equal, and being one and the same thing, like I am the same as myself, and no one else, is an eccentric notion?

If you were feral, I don't think your natural capacity to speak would be activated. — frank

I dunno....a feral cat does the same basic stuff as a regular cat. A feral human, if there could be such a thing, might just be what we’d call uncivilized. Still have the same innate capacities, I would guess. Again....the reality of it would be inconceivable, even if the logic is not.

Point is, your private language would be built off work done by others — frank

Agreed, hence my (edited) unloaded consciousness stipulation.

I dunno....a feral cat does the same basic stuff as a regular cat. A feral human, if there could be such a thing, might just be what we’d call uncivilized. Still have the same innate capacities, I would guess. Again....the reality of it would be inconceivable, even if the logic is not. — Mww

There have been a few cases of feral children. In some cases they never learn to speak. If private speech is primary, you'd expect them be able to adapt, though their inability could stem from various things.

Point is, your private language would be built off work done by others — frank


Agreed, hence my (edited) unloaded consciousness stipulation. — Mww

Right. We have limited scientific info on that (private language bootstrapping). Chomsky mentioned that we can't get that kind of knowledge because it would be unethical to do experiments.

How does your view about private language flow into your ontology? I'm guessing you're a realist.

So would you argue that the set of things we declare to be real is largely produced intersubjectively — frank

No - I would not use that word; nor the notion of reality that seems implicit. Far too broad.

Poor us, Frank; you only ever ask half an question, I only ever provide half an answer.


Between us we have half of a conversation...

Obviously the world “subjective” has a socially constructed meaning. — khaled

Subjectivity is not socially constructed.
— khaled

Why are you so sure? Why so certain?

The myth has you in its thrall; how could things be otherwise? — Banno

I rather like the chess analogy,

What is salient here is that while chess is a game for two players, it is possible to play it by oneself. What would be absurd would be to conclude that therefore chess must essentially be a game for one player, which is occasionally played by two people - intersubjectively. — Banno

Since chess is a social construct, playing chess by yourself is also a social construct...

Poor us, Frank; you only ever ask half an question, I only ever provide half an answer. — Banno

That's fine. I had a feeling you wouldn't be able to answer.

I think Mww will say whether he thinks reality is a social construct.

Since chess is a social construct, playing chess by yourself is also a social construct... — Banno

Sure but I’m saying that even if you had no one to play with the board doesn’t disappear. If that makes sense.

Even if the word “fear” was never created, people would still be afraid in certain situations. They just wouldn’t know what to call it. And they might consequently “play chess with themselves” and call it “reef” or whatever.

The word comes into circulation when you notice that everyone has a word that describes similar situations (when you’re afraid)

OK.

I think Mww will say whether he thinks reality is a social construct. — frank

OK.

You do see that the question you asked Mww is different to the question you asked me..?

Mortgages and Football associations are social constructs. Mountains, no. Chairs... yes and no.

can’t tell if that’s agreement or dismissal. Which is it?

Well...

care to elaborate what issue you see with it?

I'm just not seeing the point.

I thought you were saying that without the word, the emotion would somehow no longer be experienced. If not then I don't get what "Subjectivity is intersubjective" means even though you and unenlightened seem to be agreeing on it. What does that mean?

I'm too tired at the moment to follow the confusion in this discussion. I don't see how "Subjectivity is intersubjective" is the same as "without the word, the emotion would somehow no longer be experienced", and I don't recall agreeing to such a claim anyway. At the least it would help if you provided links to the posts. I'm not sure which of the various objections to the OP belonged just to you, and would like to keep your part of the chat clear of Mww's Kantian oddities, Frank's noncommitment and Luke's disembodied pains.

I don't recall agreeing to such a claim anyway. — Banno

Here:

Subjectivity is not socially constructed.
— khaled

Why are you so sure? Why so certain?

The myth has you in its thrall; how could things be otherwise? — Banno

You called it a myth.

I'm too tired at the moment to follow the confusion in this discussion. — Banno

Me too honestly. I think we mostly agree, just keep misunderstanding each other.

I don't see how "Subjectivity is intersubjective" is the same as "without the word, the emotion would somehow no longer be experienced", — Banno

Well I read it something like: "Experiences are socially mediated". As in without the word the experience doesn't happen. I can't really interpret that 3 word combination. Just looks like word salad to me. But that was my best shot.

That's fine. I had a feeling you wouldn't be able to answer. — frank

Banno is a denier of the mental world. That's where his fear of certain words come from, and he cannot really say it out loud because he knows how ridiculous it may sound. Hence his timid questions and evasive answers.

You were pressing me to explain why pains are subjective but noses are not. I offered an explanation in terms of personhood. A better explanation, more relevant to the OP, might be that the subjective is whatever aggregates to make the “intersubjective”. My view is that it’s individual people. — Luke

Yep. That's the bit I saw as circular; because your definition of individual persons contained their ability to feel pain as one of the defining factors. So you end up with "pains are subjective because they're in the list of things which are subjective".

Why are persons defined by their ability to feel pain, but not by their having noses?

Yep. No mental stuff here.

"Experiences are socially mediated". As in without the word the experience doesn't happen. — khaled

...as in the experience would be different.

Exactly. If somebody rings, you try to pretend that nobody's at home. Hence your difficulties to express yourself clearly: a self-professed zombie with no mental world cannot be expected to make much sense. If you were to articulate clear positions, it would blow your cover.

I can buy that.

And the experience is not mental stuff?