Brad,
To respond to your question about my reference to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “private language†argument will require me to go off-topic for a bit.
Wittgenstein thought that every meaning has a social background, and as such, a strictly private language is impossible. If Robinson Crusoe had ended up on his lonely island before he was taught a language, then Wittgenstein would say that not only would he have no need of language, the very idea of one makes no sense. His argument goes something like this.
Suppose Crusoe finds a plant that is good to eat and another similar plant that is unpalatable. Crusoe gives each of them a name so as not to confuse the two. To these names he attaches a linguistic sound, and thus when he see these plants he utters the sound that he has assigned to each. But Wittgenstein reminds us that if Crusoe could already identify the plant such that he could name it, then the naming of the plant serves no purpose! Whatever noises a linguistically isolated person could make, not only would they be useless, they would also not count as a language.
Another example I’ve read considers two chess players. At the start of a game the black player places a little paper crown on his queen. The white player asks him why he’s done this. The black says that for him the crown imparts a special meaning to his queen. The white asks the black if he intends to make any unusual moves with his paper-crowned queen. The black replies, “No, my queen will follow precisely the same rules as a queen without a paper crown.†To this the white says, “Then this crown does not have what I call ‘meaning’.â€
I think I understand the point Wittgenstein is making. I would note though, that a written private language would aid Crusoe if he should wish to record the daily island occurrences as well as his thoughts in a diary. Wittgenstein would likely counter by saying that this would amount to talking to one’s self, and one cannot tell oneself anything that one does not already know. Yes, but who doesn’t write down things to help them remember? But Wittgenstein’s idea is less objectionable if we limit ourselves to the spoken language. Still, a minor objection might be that some of us recite lines of poetry that we’ve committed to memory just for the simple enjoyment of it. Why wouldn’t Robinson Crusoe take pleasure from writing and reciting poetry in his own invented language?
There is another aspect of this argument that I’ll mention. It’s obvious that we change with time. I think we change so much as to regularly become different people. As a 45-year old man I’m not the same person I was as a boy of 5. Of the 6 billion people on this planet I very well imagine there is another middle-aged man that looks, thinks, and acts far more like I do today than the boy of 5 who was me at an earlier time. If this is true, then this other man is more “me†than this 5-year old boy that I was. But clearly this other middle-aged man is a different person than I am. Then it also makes sense to say that I am even more a different person now from that which I was as a boy. You might object that I have the same body today as I did as a child. Well, besides the fact that I weigh twice as much, am twice as tall, and look almost nothing like I did as a child, there is the further fact that nearly every cell in my body has changed several times since I was young. Other than a few brain cells, I am - atom for atom - an entirely different person.
Thinking again of Robinson Crusoe, there is not a single person that inhabits his otherwise deserted island. As Robinson’s life plays out, there will be a succession of persons living on this island. So, if the young Robinson develops his own language, this same language will carry over to a later Robinson and form a link between the two persons. In this I’m agreeing with Wittgenstein, but for different reasons than he gave. I’m saying there can be no private language because there is no such thing as a unique, yet long-lived private person.
Now, if we are different people, then there must be moral implications involved. What if I smoked as a youth, but the mature version of me is repelled by the very thought of smoking? Since we are two distinctly different persons it can be said that the earlier person has harmed the health of the later person. The argument cut s the other way as well. Should we hold the very different later person accountable for some misdeed the earlier person was responsible for? I think Wittgenstein’s’ argument works perfectly well if one replaces “private language†with “private morality.†There can be no private morality. Morality arises when at least two persons develop a relationship to each other.
Speaking now of my earlier post, I said that parents should not be allowed to teach their child exclusively in a private language. Of course, strictly speaking, if you taught another person to speak your private language it would no longer be private. I was trying to use Wittgenstein’s argument that to teach a child the parent’s private language or private logic is to deny the child the basic social aspect of language. Poetry aside, the fundamental purpose of language is to communicate. If there can be a common language then there can be a common logic.
It’s a wonderful thing to teach a Quebecois child to speak French. But when one considers that a much larger English speaking community surrounds Quebec, it makes sense to also teach the child to speak English. Now granted, the world would be a poorer place if we all only spoke English. The world would be a poorer place if we all held one philosophy, and one belief.
I’m reminded of something Robert Nozick said in his book, Philosophical Explanations:
“Philosophical argument, trying to get someone to believe something whether he wants to believe it or not, is not, I have held, a nice way to behave towards someone; also it does not fit the original motivation for studying or entering philosophy. That motivation is puzzlement, curiosity, a desire to understand, not a desire to produce uniformity of belief. Most people do not want to become thought-police. The philosophical goal of explanation rather than proof not only is morally better, it is more in accord with ones philosophical motivation.”
I surely have no wish to become the “thought-police.†In retrospect, I feel bad for having come down so hard on tRippq. It’s more important that he continue to think philosophically than for me to have made a knockdown argument. I do think however, that the virtue of maintaining diverse ideas does not include the maintaining of bad ideas. This whole business of philosophical argument, is for me a means of replacing my own flawed ideas with better ideas. I’m not trying to change anyone’s thinking as much as I’m trying to change my own. I don’t believe that our lack of an ultimate Truth implies that we have no criteria for rating the validity of our ideas.
Brad, I’m sure you are aware of the fundamental logical flaw in the notion of strong Relativism. If a strong relativist were to state there exists no basis for the selection of one idea over another, then it follows that he has no basis as well for selecting Relativism from among the other theories. If I were to level an argument against a strong relativist, he would have no hope of countering my argument and still maintain his idea that one argument is as good as another. How strong is your notion of relativism Brad, and do you think it runs afoul of this argument?
I think your daughter is very fortunate to be raised in two cultures as well as two languages. She is no less fortunate in that her father is a teacher. My wife also had the benefit of being raised in two cultures. As a girl she had two family homes, one in Northern Italy and the other here in America. I think I’ve adopted some of her European ways.
Brad, I’d like to send my best wishes to you and your family. Have you put any photos up on the web? If so, would you kindly direct me to them? I think it would be nice if we could be able to attach a friendly face to the text on the screen. In fact, I recently sent a photo of my wife and myself to Magius. It would be nice if we all had a place to store such a photo. We could have a “picture†thread which provided the links all in one place. Well, it’s just an idea.
Yes, the Alan Sokal business was interesting. If I don’t see your new post on the subject, I’ll initiate one myself.
Regards,
Michael