Re: Principles and causation (was: Language Creation etc.)

En réponse à John Cowan <jcowan@...>:

>
> Well, you do agree that some actions are done other than on principle?
Of course, and I had no problem with that. It's just the difference between
*because of* a principle and *according to* a principle that I can't manage to
grasp. Actions can be done *in accordance to* a principle, *against* a
principle, or simply without having anything to do with principle at all, even
remotely, but I can't see what is an action which is accomplished *because of*
a principle. That's my only problem.

> If so, then an action may be *motivated* by something other than
> principle,
> but it may happen to coincide with principle nevertheless.  More
> weakly,
> an action may be motivated by something other than principle and
> nonetheless
> not contravene any principle.  For example, I ate a bagel this morning
> because I was hungry (ergo not on principle), and doing so did not
> contravene
> any principle of mine.
>
Of course, and all you say is perfectly clear, but defining what is being *in
accordance* with a principle or not won't help understand what it is to be
*because of* a principle.

[Snip examples of Lojban grammar]

Interesting. Indeed, those distinctions may be sometimes be necessary. But I
have the feeling that even the clearness of Lojban would not help me in this
case. Until you find me an example which positively contrasts an action done
*because of* a principle from an action accomplished *according to* a
principle, I think I won't be able to grasp this nuance which people seem to
find obvious.

I'm thinking that such a situation must be quite a difficulty for IAL makers
who think they can manage to create a language truly unambiguous :)) .

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.

Reply