Wittgensteinians
Life in the Post-Analytic World, Given by the Man Who Ended Philosophy As History Knew It

Home » Concerning Wittgenstein's Ideas » On Wittgensteinian Ideas » [Wittrs] Private language argument so confused.
[Wittrs] Private language argument so confused. [message #6821] Thu, 21 July 2011 21:24 Go to previous message
quixotical387 is currently offline  quixotical387
Messages: 1
Registered: July 2011
Junior Member
I understand the simple version and complex version of the PLA as far as levels of description go.

Here is what I know which will put us in place for what I don't know.

Easy description: Language is based on the possibility to demonstrate and share actions and information.

Complex description:
1. The private sign can only stand for something only I know. We'll say X.

2. If something only stands for one thing and that one thing can only be known by me then I cannot appeal to anything else to affix a sign to it. (I cannot refer to a previous private meaning either as the purpose of this argument is to decide whether there could be a private sign in the first place.)

3. If I can only refer to that thing to consider my correctness in assigning the name then I cannot refer to anything further explainable publicly or privately for its justification.

4. A factual assertion must appeal to something other than itself in order to be a factual assertion at all.

5. X can only appeal to itself for correctness so X cannot be a factual asertion.

6. The sign is not given any meaning at all because I have no criterion for correctness in its application.

7. There can be no private language.

That all seems well. Were I am helplessly confused is here.

Couldn't, after all that, I just say "The feeling of correctness is my justification for X."?

Unless we want to admit that a feeling of correctness is the same as having a sensation?

It seems like I could have a private language because my criterion for application could just be the feeling of correctness I get.

I accept the argument but am failing to see how I couldn't just say "I have the sensation and call it X." It seems in order to deny that I would have to deny that I could remember sensations.

But the text doesn't support any of my would be objections.

If anyone could point me in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it.
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Art, Science, Philosophy and Cognition
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Feb 22 10:49:40 EST 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01716 seconds