Wittgenstein's Private Language Argument

“If God had looked into our minds he would not have been able to see there whom we were speaking of.”

#philosophy #wittgenstein #epistemology

[ReynaSingh]

I suppose all of existence is relating inner and outer experiences, and somehow even though none of us really knows what’s going on in the mind of another, we all coexist. It’s quite beautiful

[josephasghar]

Thank you so much. A tricky concept made clear.

[cloudoftime]

I can imagine a recognition of flawed memory and creating a map for your future self.

[Self-Duality]

“A human being can punish himself” — why did that cause me to laugh? 😅💭

[yclept]

I think it's more that society stabilizes criteria for concepts. As Levinas says, ethics comes before ontology, by which he means it stabilizes it. A private language doesn't have that.

But even so, it's not stabilized into definiteness. You know what a chair is, and what can serve as a chair but isn't a chair (tree stump), and what cases remain doubtful even though nothing's unclear about the situation ("I don't know if I'd call that a chair"). That implied social history would not come up in a private language.

[annalisavajda]

Well sure some people think and write in code too so if you read something private they wrote you might think it says or means something it does not but you should not have been reading it anyway perhaps either then you would not have gotten the wrong idea about it. Why do some think they are entitled to know or presume to know the private thoughts of others? It's invasive and they often project their own concepts and biases and then distort context.

[potshangbamkhangamcha]

As a hypothetical view, what about the well known phenomenon of mind readers who can intuit into inner workings others minds? The first person inner sensation in one's mind is the starting point. Speaking about something in a group context always presuppose the fore-having structures of those inner workings of first person experience. Only then one can make oneself vocal. The question of private language seems to be incoherent in this sense of what already in mind which is the only thing one can speak about (Heudegger)

[joekulik]

When my twin daughters were old enough to talk, they developed a secondary language, a "private language" that was only meaningful in the dialogues between the h em. This linguistic phenomenon is common among twins and other social groups for more adaptive purposes. But the type of private language discussed in this video would, in practical terms, be the sign of a very mentally ill person who has severe difficulties with dealing with social reality as it is naturally given.

[cliffordhodge]

The gap between ostension and meaning (a definition) is apparently unbridgeable. Identifying the object of ostension (e.g., when pointing in the general direction of a tiger) in a spatial manifold is problematic; and this private language problem shows that ostension in a purely temporal manifold is also problematic.

[IKnowNeonLights]

This private language argument, it is a Freudian/Nietzsche/Kafka technique bias, extremely possible, considering the historical period and location for anyone of the education level of Wittgenstein.

Which is, in it's core structure, (the reasoning of a possible mental problem/condition, within a cultural and societal setting, through logic.)

Why did Wittgenstein go to Russell?!!!

To understand how to deal with elevated levels of well informed, well educated paranoia.

What is the (private language) concept he has written about?!!!!

A broken down, easy justifiable, through reason and logic in regards and relation to thinking, of all possible levels of (thinking thoughts) paranoia.

A problem that can be avoided very easy, by involving the mind on the pre socratic way of philosophy.

Such as!!

Is one point two points, or (is) two points one point.?!

Which would make any possible Wittgenstein go to a possible Heidegger, and not a possible Russell.

[bmxt]

What is the story behind that graffiti, does anyone know?

[behemoth]

So the cops knew that internal affairs were setting them up?

[shanejohns]

We clearly could think prior to language, or how else would we have developed language in the first instance? Which tells me, at least, that some form of rudimentary thinking can take place without any corresponding language.

[evinnra]

If I have sensation S and able to recall the fact that I named that sensation S and the likes of that sensation S, then it is by it self is meaningless indeed. However if I also have *memory* of sensation S being sometimes followed by sensation B sometimes by sensation C or A, frequently and repeatedly having either and I'm persistently naming these sensations B or C or A, then in my mind something fundamental to what we think of meaning emerges, despite the fact that nobody has access to what I sense. Right?

[TheTranceCartel]

Why did you use the Jimmy Savile accent though

[somethingyousaid]

My (existential) rage is a language all its own. And it's because none of you can feel it that none of you read it (and thus appreciate it) for the language that it is.

[JSwift-jqwn]

Typical philosophy teacher assures the young students: there is no such a thing as a stupid question. I say there is. Why does something exist instead of nothing.
Talking about language without referring to psychology is stupid. Private language is dream. Have you ever been surprised in a dream? It happens regularly.