That's the point, you can't refer to private content. It can't be talked about; but, somehow manifests in the way we talk to one another. — Posty McPostface

I didn't say it can't be talked about, some of it can be talked about. It's just that if we do talk about it, it can't be entirely private. For example, I can say that I'm in pain, that is private content, but when it comes to meaning, there must be something that shows itself. Thus to learn how to correctly use the word pain, we have to be able to use the word in the real world. So we observe people crying, moaning, screaming, etc, these are the outward signs of pain, at least generally. This is how we know if a child is using the word correctly. If there were no outward signs of pain, how would we know what we mean by pain? This directly corresponds with the beetle-in-the-box, there is no way for me to know what the word beetle is referring too, no outward thing for the word to latch onto, no way for us to know if you're using the word correctly or not.

I didn't say it can't be talked about, some of it can be talked about. — Sam26

It's either private or it isn't, not both, and more importantly where do you draw the line?

It's just that if we do talk about it, it can't be entirely private. — Sam26

So, what is it then? Private or public?

Maybe the whole private/public dichotomy needs to be swept away and replaced with something more intuitive or clear?

This directly corresponds with the beetle-in-the-box, there is no way for me to know what the word beetle is referring too, no outward thing for the word to latch onto, no way for us to know if you're using the word correctly or not. — Sam26

I agree. I have no grounds to think otherwise. All I have is a set of criteria which I use (call it intuition or the private and public aspect of my being).

It's either private or it isn't, not both, and more importantly where do you draw the line? — Posty McPostface

No, that's not the case. The beetle-in-the-box is totally private, i.e., there is no way for us to know what is going on in any of the boxes. However, if I have a pain, there is not only the inner experience of my pain, but there is the outer demonstration of pain (moaning, crying, etc), which is why the word pain has meaning, and the word beetle does not. The word beetle is senseless in Wittgenstein's example, but pain is not.

Where do you draw the line? Well, if there is nothing that shows itself in terms of the inner thing, then one can't derive meaning. If we say we are thinking, then there are things that show themselves to demonstrate that we think. If someone says the Holy Spirit spoke to them, and there is no outward demonstration of that, then how does one know that it's the Holy Spirit? Just like how does one know it's a beetle, there is no way to know, no correct or incorrect use of the word, it's senseless.

One such language game that impressed me and continues to impress me is what Rumsfeld said about there being known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. After reading it three times it sounds like gibberish; but, yeah the guy was smart, I guess is how you can put it. — Posty McPostface

He wasn't that smart; he left out the unknown knowns. :wink:

In the mean time, everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics. — Bitter Crank

On the other hand, everything begins in politics and ends in mysticism. (I think we've had this conversation before: I have a sense of deja vu).