The Private Language Argument
Richard Floyd explains a notorious example of Wittgenstein’s public thought.
Yep. That’s basically my own reaction to a private definition and a private meaning for words used in a private language. Sure, if, for whatever personal reason, you choose to do this, either keep it to yourself or attempt to communicate it to others who accept your own subjective codes.
Only if and when this communication has practical implications for those not able to decode the exchange would it become more problematic.
My point instead is that in regard to communication that revolves around conflicting goods, a kind of “private language” can lead to all manner of dire consequences. Your definition and your meaning of freedom and justice revolve around women being able to abort their unborn babies/clumps of cells, while for others they revolve around the unborn being brought into this world.
This behaviorism?
“…the theory that human and animal behavior can be explained in terms of conditioning, without appeal to thoughts or feelings, and that psychological disorders are best treated by altering behavior patterns…”
Of course here language would seem to revolve around an amoral approach to human interactions. Being in a position of power to mold and manipulate – condition – human behaviors to serve your own wants and needs. Or the wants and the needs of “society”. In that sense what you defend or attack can be seen as largely beside the point.
And language becomes “private” more in terms of “one of us” vs. “one of them”.