"I know how the colour green looks to me": it is one thing to say that our use of language is determined by the coincidence of coherent structures in use, rather than correspondence at the granular level; it is another to say that there is no corresponding truth of the matter, or that to speak of it would be nonsense - even though it may be unverifiable, we would have an idea of what verification could be.
Although this too is problematic, and presupposes that we know what a subjective view entails. Ie, if it is subjective - would it be possible for someone else to gain a representation of it? Presumably that was how language was possible at all.
***
"Private sensations are not objects that we refer to, because referring to them becomes irrelevant if only we experience them." This depends on whether these experiences are necessary for the coherence of what we say so that we understand what another means when they talk about their experiences. We certainly assume correspondence as the best explanation for shared coherence. This inter-subjective space forms the basis of our manner of speaking, both of subjective and 'objective' reality. Structural isomorphism in the way in which we relate the internal to the external is embodied in language. So again - what content is constituent to this structural equivalence?
***
This is not to say that language just is embodied isomorphism. "No private language" claims must be accompanied by the claim that language can only be used for communication, not interpretation or constructing meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment