When I wrote that, I chose the wording with care. I had in mind the very misinterpretation you make, and hence chose "a language understandable by only a single individual" against "a language understood by only a single individual". Subtle stuff.a language understandable by only a single individual is incoherent" — Andrew4Handel
So Taushiro is understood by only one man, but might be understood by others. But the private language argument concerns a language that could not in principle be understood by another person - a language about private sensations. — Banno
gave the example of Einstein earlier. He formulated private ideas about physics/time/light and he didn't need to share them so they could have stayed unique to his own mind. — Andrew4Handel
He didn't have to use a private language to express his ideas. It appears that language use requires some sort of stable, external grounding to keep the rules straight. That's the intuition behind the private language argument. — frank
Keep reading and thinking. You haven't got there yet. See especially "What a private Language is" in the Wiki article. — Banno
The language became private when only he understood it. People can combine words from the current languages to create new meaning. That meaning may only resonate with them. — Andrew4Handel
What I have noticed is that there are many interpretations of what the private language argument is and that Wittgenstein does not present formal arguments. — Andrew4Handel
The private language argument suggests that you might not be able to remember this sensation for lack of any external foundation for naming it. — frank
It seems clear that we are able to remember a lot of sensations without words attached such as different tastes and smells and the feel of different textiles. — Andrew4Handel
People can combine words from the current languages to create new meaning. That meaning may only resonate with them. — Andrew4Handel
It seems clear that we are able to remember a lot of sensations without words attached such as different tastes and smells and the feel of different textiles. — Andrew4Handel
But what role is 'sensation' playing here ? Does it clarify or obscure ? — plaque flag
Part of what seems to make them, irreducibly private is that language is not adequate to represent them. — Andrew4Handel
a correlation between them and physical mechanisms can be made. — Andrew4Handel
It's like money. We can discuss the idea that each of us has our own 'immaterial feelings' toward 500 euros, but it makes more sense to me, in discussing what euros mean, to see how those euros are traded out in the open. — plaque flag
Does it cause confusion for you? — frank
This seems like a strange way to go about it. I don't need any metaphysical issues laid to rest before I decide whether or not I have sensations. — frank
metaphysical dualistic radicalization of this mentalistic talk (private immaterial referents) is confused. — plaque flag
Strange. I thought you were describing pretty why 'private language' doesn't make much sense. — plaque flag
You know exactly what sensations are ? Did you discover their exact nature ? Or is it a tautology ? Synthetic or analytics — plaque flag
A 'language' in which you can 'call' something 'pain' or 'blue' lacks content. These labels would have no grip, no relation to reasoning or justifying actions. — plaque flag
I experience pain. As I said, I don't need to dredge any metaphysical swamps to know that. — frank
I don’t need to see something or know something about it to talk about it. — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.