I don’t find that assuming predestiny has any effect on my actions.
“Assuming predestiny” is itself an action, for one thing. It totally messes up the moral weights we assign to actions, for another.
In colloquial English, “I had to do x” does imply “I feel compelled to do x.”[...] And indeed, two of your examples suggest that you feel pressure to behave consistently and to share your thoughts.
Hm, perhaps I am drawing lines differently than you. You said in your first post that my use of “had” was specifically untrue. And yet it’s fine to say that it’s true if I felt even “some pressure” to do it. You probably noticed this oddness too, since you reiterate:
What I was actually claiming is that you were using a language pattern which I’ve found it beneficial to stop using.
Oh, okay. Well, to be frank: tough. I take perhaps a little too much responsibility already :D
Better to evaluate language as communication rather than “thought-stuff.”
What an odd distinction. What is language for, if not communicating thoughts?
You just made the distinction too :) For example, some people claim that double negatives (including “ain’t no”) are “wrong.” As if they were a false theorem, or a wrong thought. But when they are seen as a mode of communicating thoughts, it’s clear that the only requirement is that it works.
A closely related argument is over whether or not using language truly changes the way you think. There are some subtle and interesting ways that it does, but in general, Orwell was wrong. (Here, have a link.)
Now, if you were claiming that using “had” was bad communication, I’d be more inclined to listen. In fact I already have implicitly listened, since I removed that sentence.
“Assuming predestiny” is itself an action, for one thing. It totally messes up the moral weights we assign to actions, for another.
Hm, perhaps I am drawing lines differently than you. You said in your first post that my use of “had” was specifically untrue. And yet it’s fine to say that it’s true if I felt even “some pressure” to do it. You probably noticed this oddness too, since you reiterate:
Oh, okay. Well, to be frank: tough. I take perhaps a little too much responsibility already :D
You just made the distinction too :) For example, some people claim that double negatives (including “ain’t no”) are “wrong.” As if they were a false theorem, or a wrong thought. But when they are seen as a mode of communicating thoughts, it’s clear that the only requirement is that it works.
A closely related argument is over whether or not using language truly changes the way you think. There are some subtle and interesting ways that it does, but in general, Orwell was wrong. (Here, have a link.)
Now, if you were claiming that using “had” was bad communication, I’d be more inclined to listen. In fact I already have implicitly listened, since I removed that sentence.
Speaking of communication, we seem to be interested in having different conversations from each other in this thread; let’s not.