Hi Cliff, On Thursday 11 September 2003 06:39, Cliff Stabbert wrote: > arnoud wrote: > > a> Well, to name internal events, there have to be rules/criteria for > correct use a> of a term/name, like always for any use of language. How do > you know how to a> use the word 'pain' for example, how did you learn its > rule(s)? Well probably a> from your parents who told you you were in pain > when you hit your knee or a> something like that and screamed afterwards. > Behaviour was the necessary a> basis for this learning event. > > This sounds plausible but I disagree that it proves your point. > > 1) Although I have indeed been taught words for internal states/ > events/experiences based on other people's observation of my > external behaviour, that does not mean I don't have internal > experiences *without* external observables where the word or > concept appears to apply. I.e. having learned about "pain" > in initially a physical, and later a metaphoric sense (for > emotional hurt), I can at a later date experience something-I- > choose-to-designate "pain" without anyone, as it were, being the > wiser that I am experiencing it.
Yes, of course. Pain without pain behaviour, and also pain behaviour without pain can happen. The point is that if that were the case most of the time the word 'pain' cannot be connected well to experienced pain. Not intersubjectively at least, there could not be an intersubjectively shared rule(s)/criteria for correct use of 'pain', and then communication breaks down. (According to Wittgenstein there can be no pure subjective rule following. See his famous private language argument (if I'm allowed to say that ;-) ) > A far better example in this context would be the phrase/concept > "deja vu". Although to learn the term I must exhibit certain > external behaviour -- to wit, speak the words "have you ever had > the feeling you've been here and done this before?" -- certainly I > can later experience a state or feeling I designate "deja vu" > without externals. Yes OK, but were is it a 'deja vu' of? Of pain. pleasure, seeing a color? In other words, a 'deja vu' may tell you there's a rule, something to name, but what is the rule, which name applies? It seems to me the 'deja vu' cannot on its own be the basis for that decision; it's too vague. > > 2) Although this may sound like a ginned-up argument, I have named and > do name internal states *for my own exclusive use* as well. > Language is not only for communication, it's also for memory (or > to put it differently, communication to a future self / from a past > self). About words on paper and so on I would answer yes. Without an external medium for notation I'm not so sure. > > More specifically, I've been keeping a journal/diary as I've gone > through the anti-depressant drug merry-go-round (or triste-go- > round ;), in order to have a better record of my internal states > than vague impressions like "I think I felt better last month when > I was taking medication X". In doing so I've found it necessary/ > useful/helpful to come up with my own personal vocabulary for > certain states. This is the scenario of the private language argument. In that story the privacy is fundamental; the person cannot explain the internal event to anyone else; he is unable. He follows his rule privately (impossible according to W.). Do you mean that also? Or is it that you could explain to other people what you experience (and they would understand you)? And do you think that behaviour you can refer to (or simulate) plays a necessary rol in that? And if so, how do you know it doesn't play a necessary rol for you too in discerning X. > > a> For more information on this, see Wittgenstein's Philosophical > a> Investigations, Ryle's Concept of Mind, Dennett, Davidson etc. > > Sorry, I didn't come here to play "who has read more philosophy > books". Please address arguments in this forum on your own terms. Or > at the least say, "my opinions on these matters has been informed by, > and I tend to agree with the arguments of, authors X, Y and Z" rather > than "For more information on this, see X, Y and Z." The latter type > of citation is suitable for consensus "facts" such as the population > of the U.S. or the molecular weight of gold. When used to cite > philosophy it implies objectivity and comes off sounding arrogant. Please..... wow......I'm sorry, but isn't the arrogance here in the eye of the beholder? I mean, you don't have to see it like that. Anyway, the discussion starting to get off subject, not? Bye, Arnoud ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
