Re: Principles and causation (was: Language Creation etc.)
|From:||John Cowan <jcowan@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, May 15, 2002, 21:39|
Christophe Grandsire scripsit:
> 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.
It means that the motivation behind your behavior was the desire to
conform to a principle. Of course I cannot tell, just looking at
what you do, whether you are motivated by principle or not, even if
I know what your principles are.
> 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.
Well, consider A, B, and C, who all tell the truth. A has a principle
that says "Tell the truth", and he wishes to act according to his
principles, so he tells the truth. B has no such principle, but
believes that he will suffer if he does not tell the truth, so he
too tells the truth. C like A has the principle, but like B his
*motivation* for telling the truth is avoidance of suffering.
C acts in accordance with his principle (objective), but not
because (i.e. motivated by) it.
> 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 :)) .
Which is why Loglan/Lojban only strives for unambiguous orthography and
morphosyntax, not semantics.
John Cowan <jcowan@...> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_