You did not give an example of how the word "ouch" might be used in a sentence — Luke

I said that "Ouch!" is a sentence, not that "ouch" is a sentence.

The word "ouch!" is an exclamation, and according to the University of Sussex, an exclamation can be a sentence.

However it is clear that you have not seen how to replace thinking in terms of meaning with thinking in terms of use, and are still attempting to get at meaning by looking at use while treating these as distinct things — Banno

If I go into a corner shop, see people say "I want a cracker" and are given a cracker, then when I want a cracker I know to say "I want a cracker". As Wittgenstein said, meaning is use.
PI 43 For a large class of cases—though not for all—in which we employ the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language

But if I went into the corner shop and just said "I", nothing would happen, even though the shopkeeper would know what "I" means. They would see no use in my saying it. Similarly if I just said "want", or just said "a" or just said "cracker", the shopkeeper would know the meaning of each word, but would see no use in my saying these words. Only the complete sentence "I want a cracker" not only has meaning but also a use.

If a parrot walked into a corner shop and spoke "I want a cracker", the shopkeeper would do nothing as they know the parrot is not aware of the language game.

A child may see in a corner shop people saying "I want a cracker" and being given a cracker. On returning home, the child may say to its parents "I want a cracker". On not being given a cracker, then discovers that its parents are playing a different language game. Only by trial and error the child may discover that they will only be given a cracker when saying "Please I want a cracker", thereby successfully becoming part of its parents' language game.

I can understand that a sentence has both meaning and use, but isn't it the case that a single word may have a meaning but no use?

We enter into a community that already plays various language games — Banno

It could well be that as the child grows up, it may decide that the word "please" is a symbol of a military industrial complex that squashes the democratic rights of the proletariat, and decides that the the word "please" should therefore be banned from use. In changing the meaning of the word "please", it has instantly created a new language game, even if they are the only person who has such a belief. In effect, they have created a private language game.

Isn't a language game used by only one person a private language game?

“Ouch” is not a name, it is an expression — Antony Nickles

I agree that "ouch!" is an expression, as I wrote before "In that sense one can rightly say that "ouch!" is an expression of pain."

The word "ouch!" replaces a picture. As a noun is a word that refers to a thing, and as a picture also refers to a thing, a picture is a noun. As only a noun can replace a noun, "ouch!" is also a noun.

"Ouch!" is an exclamation, a short sound, word or phrase spoken suddenly to express an emotion. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, an exclamation is a noun: 1) a sharp or sudden utterance, 2) vehement expression of protest or complaint.

Use it in a sentence. — Luke

If someone can see me, they see a picture of me wincing. If someone cannot see me, and hear me say "ouch!", they can replace the word "ouch!" by a picture of me wincing, ie, the word "ouch!" names the picture of me wincing.

The word "ouch!" names a picture, and a picture is a noun. Therefore, in the sentence "Ouch!", the word "ouch!" is being used as a noun.

To say that "ouch" names a pain behaviour is to treat it as though it were a verb, such as "wincing" — Luke

"House" as a noun names a building for human habitation. "Ouch!" as a noun names a pain behaviour.

PI 26: To repeat—naming is something like attaching a label to a thing.

If I stub my toe I may say "ouch" even if no one else is around to hear me. Certainly this is not intended to communicate a private sensation to others or to myself. — Fooloso4

Then why did you say the word ?

Words are not all just the names of things. — Banno

I didn't properly answer your question.

It seems that the PI is making the case that god in the atheist's language game means something different to god in the Christian's language game. Neither meaning is either right or wrong, as long as each language game is coherent within itself. The word god doesn't represent a fact in the world, doesn't name something in the world, but has a meaning dependent on its context within a particular language game.

PI 43 - For a large class of cases—though not for all—in which we employ the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language.

The meaning of god in the atheist's language game is how it is used in that language game. The meaning of god in the Christian's language game is how it is used in that language game. So it is true that the meaning of a particular word, such as god, depends on which language game it is being used within

However, within a particular language game, which comes first, i) knowing the meaning of a word and then understanding the sentence it is in, or ii) learning the meaning of a word from the sentence it is in in order to understand the sentence.

It cannot be ii), therefore it must be i). The nature of the language game can only be known after the meaning of a set of words has been fixed, rather than the meaning of the set of words within a language game have been fixed by the language game.

PI 26: To repeat—naming is something like attaching a label to a thing. One can say that this is preparatory to the use of a word. But what is it a preparation for?

Doesn't this mean that the nature of the language game has already been determined by an a priori choice of words that happen to be used in that language game rather than the meaning of a word is how it is used in the language game ?

I've been addressing your mistaken belief that...............the word "ouch!" names a set of particular observed behaviours in the world......................Therefore, I don't see how your response about learning language is relevant. — Luke

Saying "ouch!" is not an involuntary act such as wincing, but rather a cognitive act as part of a language game requiring conscious thought intended to communicate a private sensation to others.

If not naming the pain behaviour directly and the private sensation indirectly, then what purpose does the word "ouch!" have in the language game?

Words are not all just the names of things. — Banno

Which comes first, knowing the meaning of a word and then understanding the sentence it is in or learning the meaning of a word from the sentence it is in in order to understand the sentence. It cannot be the latter. First, we must know the meaning of a word before being able to use it. Wittgenstein says that the naming of words comes before using them.
PI 26: To repeat—naming is something like attaching a label to a thing. One can say that this is preparatory to the use of a word. But what is it a preparation for?

Wittgenstein writes that in language, words don't just refer to objects.
PI 27: Think of exclamations alone, with their completely different functions. Water! Away! Ow! Help! Fine! No! Are you inclined still to call these words "names of objects"?

Some words we can learn the meaning of as they are the names of objects, such as "stones".
PI 7 . In the practice of the use of language (2) one party calls out the words, the other acts on them. In instruction in the language the following process will occur: the learner names the objects; that is, he utters the word when the teacher points to the stone.—And there will be this still simpler exercise: the pupil repeats the words after the teacher——both of these being processes resembling language.

We can learn the meaning of words such as "ouch!", which are not the names of objects, by being taught that they can replace particular pain behaviour.
PI 244 A child has hurt himself and he cries; and then adults talk to him and teach him exclamations and, later, sentences. They teach the child new pain-behaviour. "So you are saying that the word 'pain' really means crying?"— On the contrary: the verbal expression of pain replaces crying and does not describe it.

If a word can replace something, then it names that something. For example, as the word "table" can replace the words " a piece of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface for eating, writing, or working at", then "table is the name for a piece of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface for eating, writing, or working at". As "ouch!" can replace a pain behaviour, then "ouch!" names that pain behaviour.

Do words name things? An object is a "thing". I suppose it depends on whether one can call a pain behaviour a "thing". A pain behaviour is something, but is it a "thing"?

Uttering those words becomes, for the child, a new form of pain-behavior; and for others it serves as a criterion for the child's being in pain." — Richard B

As you point out, a key para is 244 So you are saying that the word 'pain' really means crying?"— On the contrary: the verbal expression of pain replaces crying and does not describe it.

As you say, it makes sense that the word "pain" is a pain behaviour, as crying is a pain behaviour. As Wittgenstein says, the word "pain" replaces crying rather than describe it.

The child is aware of its inner sensation of pain and outer instinctive behaviour of crying. The child learns that it can replace its crying by the word "pain". The child has learnt the rule that it can replace its particular behaviour by a particular word.

The problem is, as the tortoise said to Achilles, where is the rule that there are rules. How did the child learn the rule that its particular behaviour can be replaced by a particular word?

You say "Nor does the suggestion mean that the word 'pain' stands for or refers to crying-which would be a form of behaviourism."

If the child didn't discover the rule that there are rules through behaviourism, then how does the child know to follow the rules?

“Ouch” isn’t the name of anything; it’s what you say when you hurt yourself. — Luke

An English speaker would say "ouch!", an Indonesian speaker would say "aduh!", meaning that exclaiming "ouch!" is not an innate behaviour but is rather learnt as part of a language.

I would agree that the act of saying "ouch" names a behaviour, but I would not agree that the word "ouch" names a behaviour. — Luke

I agree that the word "ouch" has to be in context. It could be the Organisation for the Understanding of Cluster Headache, a BBC website reflecting the lives and experiences of disabled people, a term in the dictionary or a speech act from someone having a rock dropped on their foot. As Wittgenstein said "The question is: "In what sort of context does it occur?"

"Ouch" is not the name of a behaviour; it is an expression of pain — Luke

I agree with the second part, as I wrote before "In that sense one can rightly say that "ouch!" is an expression of pain."

However, I'm not sure about the first part.

If I want to communicate to someone who can see me that I am in pain, I can wince. If I want to communicate to someone who cannot see me that I am in pain, I can say "ouch!"

A word such as "ouch!" can replace a behaviour such as wincing.

PI 244 - On the contrary: the verbal expression of pain replaces crying and does not describe it

If a word can replace something, then it names that something. For example, as the word "table" can replace the words " a piece of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface for eating, writing, or working at", then "table is the name for a piece of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, providing a level surface for eating, writing, or working at".

Similarly, as "ouch!" can replace a particular behaviour, then "ouch!" names that particular behaviour.

Wincing is the name of a behaviour, but "ouching" is not. — Luke

From Wittgenstein's Beetle in the Box analogy PI 293, the word "pain" in the language game cannot refer to any private sensation of pain, as any private sensation of pain drops out of consideration in the language game. This means that the word "pain" can only refer to the pain behaviour, either the act of wincing or saying "ouch!"

The act of wincing and saying "ouch!" are both pain behaviours.

Talk of pain has a superficial resemblance to talk of objects, "I have an iPhone in my hand" looks very much like "I have a pain in my hand". — Banno

As Wittgenstein said in PI 304 "Naming appears as a queer connexion of a word with an object."

A name can only name something known, something that can be directly observed. A name cannot name something that is unknown, something that cannot be directly observed.

Richard Floyd in The Private Language Argument argues that it is not the case that Wittgenstein is saying that there are no private sensations, only that such sensations are unknown to outside observers.

PI 304 Not at all. It is not a something., but not a nothing either!

As a table is a public object, it can be named within the language game. As the sensation of pain is private, it cannot be named within the language game, but what can be named within the language game is pain behaviour, the effect rather than the cause, such as a face that winces.

But what about the unicorn. How can unicorns be named, when unicorns don't exist in the world. The Oxford Dictionary defines a unicorn as "a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead".

As Wittgenstein establishes, the word "pain" describes neither the private sensation of pain not the pain behaviour but replaces the pain behaviour. Similarly, the word "unicorn" describes neither something existing in the world nor is described by its definition "a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead", but replaces the words "a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead".

PI 244 - On the contrary: the verbal expression of pain replaces crying and does not describe it

"Unicorns" exist as a replacement to the set of words ""a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead".

Therefore:
1) The word "iPhone" replaces an object that can be directly observed
2) The word "pain" replaces a pain behaviour that can be directly observed.
3) The word "unicorn" replaces the set of words ""a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead" that can be directly observed.

“Ouch” is an expression of pain, not naming the behaviors that commonly associated with pain — Richard B

My arm is stabbed, I feel pain, and involuntarily my face winces. If I don't know the English language, I cannot say "ouch!". The only way an observer can know the possibility of my internal sensation is from my behaviour, my face wincing.

When learning the English language, I am taught that the word "Ouch!" is attached to the behaviour of a wincing face. Replacing the behaviour of a wincing face by the word "ouch!" then allows me to take part in the language game. As you say "I may just say "ouch!" without any of the pain behaviour."

PI 257 - "What would it be like if human beings shewed no outward signs of pain (did not groan, grimace, etc.)? Then it would be impossible to teach a child the use of the word 'tooth-ache'."

Before learning the English language, I can express my pain through a wincing face. After learning the English language, I can express my pain not only through a wincing face but also by saying "ouch!". In that sense, one can rightly say that "ouch!" is an expression of pain.

"Ouch!" is a name in the language game. As a name, it names something. As shown by the beetle in the box analogy, it cannot name the sensation, but can only name the behaviour, as described in PI 257. "Ouch!" can only name the behaviour.

"Ouch!" is not a name for some group of behaviours. It is a behaviour. — Banno

"The word "ouch!" and behaviour
As Wittgenstein describes, the word "ouch!" replaces a person's particular behaviour. But isn't it the case that the word "ouch!" is not a behaviour, but replaces a behaviour ?
PI 244: How do words refer to sensations?....................."So you are saying that the word 'pain' really means crying?"—On the contrary: the verbal expression of pain replaces crying and does not describe it.

The word "ouch!" and naming.
Wittgenstein says that there is a strange connection between a word and an object
PI 38 - Naming appears as a queer connexion of a word with an object

But some words are clearly not the names of objects, such as the word "ouch!"
PI 27 Think of exclamations alone.......Water!, Away!, !Ow.......Are you inclined still to call these words "names of objects"

So what is the thing that the label is attached to. It cannot be the object, because as Wittgenstein says, if humans showed no outward sign of their inner sensations, showed no behaviour, then the language game would be impossible.
PI 257 - What would it be like if human beings shewed no outward signs of pain (did not groan, grimace, etc.)? Then it would be impossible to teach a child the use of the word 'tooth-ache'."

As regards naming, Wittgenstein says that "naming" means "attaching a label to a thing ". As "naming" also means attaching a word to a thing, then words are labels.
PI 15 - It will often prove useful in philosophy to say to ourselves: naming something is like attaching a label to a thing.

For Wittgenstein:
1) The word "ouch!" replaces a behaviour.
2) Naming means attaching the word "ouch!" to a behaviour, ie, the word "ouch!" names a behaviour.
3) Therefore, "attaching" a word to a behaviour means "replacing" a behaviour by a word.

Why need there be a something that is being named? What does "Ouch!" name? Perhaps the game is not one of naming at all. — Banno

Wittgenstein and the Cartesian problem

Wittgenstein asks how words refer to sensations. His interlocutor asks if the word "ouch!" is describing the other's pain, Wittgenstein say no, the word "ouch!" is replacing the pain behaviour, and neither describing the pain behaviour nor the other's pain.
PI 244: How do words refer to sensations?....................."So you are saying that the word 'pain' really means crying?"—On the contrary: the verbal expression of pain replaces crying and does not describe it.

We can only know about someone else's private sensations from their outward behaviour. For example, knowing that they are in pain because of their pain behaviour, such as exclaiming "ouch!". However, even that may be misleading, as they may not be in pain whilst still exhibiting pain behaviour, or they may be in pain and not exhibit any pain behaviour or even that they may be having the private sensation of pleasure whilst exhibiting pain behaviour
PI 304 "But you will surely admit that there is a difference between pain-behaviour accompanied by pain and pain-behaviour without any pain?"—Admit it?

Accepting that the word "ouch!" replaces pain behaviour, we could generalise and say that words replace physical things in the world. The word "ouch!" replaces pain behaviour, the word "table" replaces tables. But it is more complicated than that. Neither an ouch! nor a table are platonic forms existing independently in the world. They only exist in the mind as concepts. As concepts, they have no single essence, they don't stand for objects, but rather refer to a set of different things that share some undefinable commonality, some family resemblance.

Concepts and words are similar as forms of language. From the SEP article on Concepts, concepts are psychological entities existing in the mind, enabling thought within an internal system of representation and having a language-like syntax and compositional semantics. Wittgenstein presented the argument that language must be rule-governed, and as rules cannot be private, they must be publicly grounded. Words, being part of the language game, must therefore depend on their meaning on a language-speaking community external to any individual. Wittgenstein makes the Private Language Argument from PI 243 onwards.

Wittgenstein and an argument against solipsism
1) Concepts don't exist in the world as platonic forms, but only in the mind.
2) As Wittgenstein presents an argument against a private language, the meaning of words must be grounded outside the mind in the public sphere.
3) Wittgenstein wrote in Tractatus para 4 that A thought is a proposition with a sense, meaning that thoughts are sentences in the head, thereby linking concepts in the mind with words in a world of language users.
4) If thoughts exist inside the mind and language exists outside the mind, then if thoughts are language, then this is presenting an argument against Cartesianism and against Descartes' solipsism of the separation of mind and body.

Why need there be a something that is being named?
Words cannot replace something that cannot be observed in the world. As described in the beetle in the box analogy in PI 293, words cannot replace unobservable things such as love, beauty, pain, unicorns, but can replace observable behaviour that has been caused by such unobservable behaviour. The private sensation of pain does have real world consequences, and it is these real world consequences that are named. As private sensations are unobservable, then if there was nothing in the world to observe, there would be nothing to name.

Can nothing be named? I could invent the word "ajuhgte", but if it wasn't replacing something in the world, the word would be meaningless.

What does "Ouch!" name?
The word "ouch!" replaces a set of particular observed behaviours in the world having certain undefinable resemblances to each other. If naming is defined as replacing, then the word "ouch!" names a set of particular observed behaviours in the world having certain undefinable resemblances to each other.

Perhaps the game is not one of naming at all.
In the language game are words, where a particular word replaces a set of different things in the world having certain undefinable resemblances to each other. If "naming" is defined as replacing, then the language game must be that of naming.

Feynman perhaps misses that there is a difference between the brown-throated thrush and the brown thrasher, for which it is often mistaken. To know the name of the bird is to be able to distinguish it from other birds. — Banno

Yes, to know the name of a bird allows one to be able to distinguish it from other birds, and to know the name of a chess piece allows one to distinguish the Queen from the King.

But as you say "Naming is not yet a move in a language-game". A piece is named, but what exactly is being named. Is it the form, that a piece has a rounded crown, or is it the content, that the piece can move any number of squares in any direction.

Similarly in the expression "he is in pain". What exactly is being named, the form, the pain behaviour, the crying, or the content, the private sensation of pain, the beetle in the box?

I agree when you say "And the upshot of that is that it is improper to talk of representing our own pains and pleasures. "I have a pain in my hand" is not like "I have an iPhone in my hand"; it is more like "Ouch!""

IE, in language, it seems that the form is being named, not the content of the form.

A. In what sense are my sensations private?
B. – Well, only I can know whether I am really in pain; another person can only surmise it.
A. – In one way this is false, and in another nonsense. If we are using the word “know” as it is normally used (and how else are we to use it?), then other people very often know if I’m in pain.
B. – Yes, but all the same, not with the certainty with which I know it myself!
A. – It can’t be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I’m in pain. What is it supposed to mean
B. – except perhaps that I am in pain? — Banno

Only another 692 paragraphs in Part I to go through after we have agreed PI 246.

Wittgenstein is un-bolded, the interlocuter is bolded.

Regarding "It can’t be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I’m in pain. What is it supposed to mean"

I have had difficulty with this part of the paragraph.

Translating into my own words, I believe that this means that I would be joking if I said that I know I am in pain.

As you wrote "While @Fooloso4 and @Sam26 might disagree on the usefulness of the Cogito, they seem to agree that it doesn't make sense to say that I know I am conscious.", it must surely follow that if it doesn't make sense to say that I know I am conscious, then it also cannot make sense to say that I know I am in pain.

As we seem to agree that it wouldn't be sensible to say that I know I am in pain, this suggests that this is Wittgenstein's opinion.

Regarding "except perhaps that I am in pain?"

Translating into my own words, I believe that this means I would be joking if I said that I know I'm in pain because this means no more than I am in pain

As we seem to agree that it wouldn't be a sensible thing to say that I know I am in pain because this means no more than I am in pain, this suggests that this also is Wittgenstein's position.

As Feynman said in Names Don't Constitute Knowledge, knowing the name of something is useful if you want to talk about it with someone else, but it does not mean you know what that something is.


One Sunday all the kids were walking in little parties with their fathers in the woods. The next Monday we were playing in a field, and a kid said to me, "What's that bird? Do you know the name of that bird?" I said, "I haven't the slightest idea."He said, "Well, it is a brown throated thrush." He said, "Your father doesn't teach you anything." But my father had already taught me about the names of birds. Once we walked, and he said, "That is a brown-throated thrush. In German it is called the Pfleegel flügel. In Chinese it is called Keewontong. In Japanese a Towhatowharra, and so on. And when you know all the names of that bird in every language, you know nothing, but absolutely nothing, about the bird." And then we would go on and talk about the pecking and the feathers. So I had learned already that names don't constitute knowledge. Of course that has caused me a certain amount of trouble since because I refuse to learn the name of anything. So when someone comes in and says, "Have you got any explanation for the Fitch-Cronin experiment?" I say, "What's that?" And he says, "You know – that long-lived k meson that disintegrates into two pi's." "Oh, yes, now I know." I never know the names of things. What my father forgot to tell me was that knowing the names of things was useful if you want to talk to somebody else – so you can tell them what you are talking about. The basic principle of knowing about something rather than just knowing its name is something that you have stuck to, isn't it? Yes, of course. We have to learn that these are the kinds of disciplines in the field of science that you have to learn – to know when you know and when you don't know, and what it is you know and what it is you don't know. You've go to be very careful not to confuse yourself.

That one is in pain lies outside the scope of knowledge; it is non-epistemic..........This is why it can't be said of me at all that "I know I am in pain", and that all it could possibly mean is that I am in pain. — Luke

I agree, because as you say:"That one is in pain lies outside the scope of knowledge; it is non-epistemic"

As outside the scope of knowledge, such an expression can only be understood by the speaker, and as you also say:"A (private) language understood only by the speaker is the definition of a private language", which I also agree with.

However, the problem arises that we can only discuss a private language using a public language, a language game, as it is also true as you say that:""I am in pain" is an English phrase, and is not part of a private language, by definition"

So we are left with the quandary of how to talk about a private language, something that is outside the scope of knowledge, something non-epistemic, using language, a language game, that is by its nature inside the scope of knowledge, something epistemic.

If that one is pain is outside the scope of knowledge, something that cannot be talked about in the language game, does that mean that item 5) PI 246 It can't be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain. What is it supposed to mean—except perhaps that I am in pain? is a meaningless statement?

One knows from the other's behavior that they are in pain. — Fooloso4

One knows that are exhibiting pain behaviour, not that one knows they are in pain.

PI 304 "But you will surely admit that there is a difference between pain-behaviour accompanied by pain and pain-behaviour without any pain?"—Admit it?

When I use the word "pain" when referring to another person I am not replacing a particular behavior, but when they complain that they are in pain they are replacing some other form of behavior that expresses their pain, such as crying, with a verbal expression of pain. — Fooloso4

A person sees a child crying and says "she is crying". The phrase "in pain" replaces the crying behaviour. The person can then say "she is in pain".

A child is in pain and cries. The child learns that the phrase "in pain" replaces crying. The child can then say "I am in pain"

Note that the phrase "in pain" replaces the behaviour, not describe the sensation.

PI 244 How do words refer to sensations?........... On the contrary: the verbal expression of pain replaces crying and does not describe it

It could have been in different circumstances that the phrase "happy" had replaced crying.

The person would then have said "she is happy" and the child would have said "I am happy"

The phrase "happy" would still have replaced the behaviour, not describe the sensation.

What does 5) have to do with a private language? — Luke

5) PI 246 It can't be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain. What is it supposed to mean—except perhaps that I am in pain?

I interpret 5) as meaning that it would be unreasonable for me to say that "I know I am in pain", as this means no more than "I am in pain".

I agree when you say: "I agree that one does not need to justify one's sensation of pain to oneself." and the word "know" has a definite function in the language game.

Knowledge is justified true belief.

Suppose my belief is that I am in Paris, and my justification is that I can see the Eiffel Tower. If it is true that I am in Paris, then I know I am in Paris.

But as regards my thought that I am in pain, this needs no justification as it is true. Thinking I am in pain is sufficient. Thinking that I know I am in pain would be redundant .

But this is the same idea as expressed in item 5), inferring that item 5) is referring to one's inner thoughts rather than any public language game. In other words, to one's private language.
===============================================================================

There is no distinction here. A private language understood only by the speaker is (the very existence of) a private language. — Luke

It is the difference between keeping a diary in PI 258 and the beetle in the box in PI 293.
===============================================================================

The point of 304 (and elsewhere) - at least, on my reading - is that the concept of "pain" is not based on the private feeling that nobody else can perceive, but on the expression of the sensation; on the behaviour (that others can perceive). — Luke

Agree.
===============================================================================

If a private language can be understood only by the speaker, then to whom is one saying "I am in pain" (in English)? — Luke

I have the thought "I am in pain". Following on from the Tractatus, para 4: A thought is proposition with a sense, for Wittgenstein, thoughts are "sentences in the head".

As no one else can know my inner thoughts, no one else can know my inner language. This inner language is a type of a private language. If I am saying "I am in pain" in my inner language, only I can hear it. If I am saying "I am in pain" in the language game, then others can hear it.
===============================================================================

I don't believe that it always, or even often, requires a justification. I think the only time it might require justification is if others didn't believe you were actually in pain or if you had to prove it for some reason. — Luke

In the language game, every word needs to be justified if the language has to have any coherent meaning.

For example, if I said "Yesterday, I visited the xxyx", without any justification for the inclusion of the phrase "xxyx", the sentence would be meaningless.

If I said "I am in dolor", again the sentence would be meaningless until I had justified the inclusion of the word "dolor" by explaining that it meant "experiencing both localized and generalized unpleasant bodily sensations causing me severe physical discomfort and emotional distress"

If speaking to an audience not knowing the meaning of "dolor", I would need to say "I am experiencing both localized and generalized unpleasant bodily sensations causing me severe physical discomfort and emotional distress"

If speaking to an audience who already know the meaning of "dolor", it would be sufficient to say "I am in dolor"

Either way, every word being used in a language game needs a justification for its use, whether or not the audience already know its meaning.

I read the following as a statement of fact.........PI 246 If we are using the word “know” as it is normally used (and how else are we to use it?), then other people very often know if I’m in pain — Fooloso4

Yes, Wittgenstein does say that we can know something with more or less certainty.
PI 246 - Yes, but all the same not with the certainty with which I know it myself

Yes, I can know something with more or less certainty, but what exactly is it that one is knowing. Is one knowing the other person's sensations, or is one knowing the other person's behaviour.

Wittgenstein included PI 293 about the beetle in the box to point out that the word "pain" as it is normally used in language, in the language game, is not describing the other person's sensations, but is replacing a particular behaviour.

Yes, in the language game, we can say "I know they are in pain", but what does that mean exactly. According to the beetle in the box analogy, as the word "pain" is replacing a particular behaviour, the expression means "I know they are exhibiting a particular behaviour, and I know that this particular behaviour has been replaced by the word "pain"".

I am busy reading philosophy and have become convinced that I cannot know from the baby's behavior that she is in pain — Fooloso4

The second statement was intended to be ironic. — Fooloso4

I am sure that Wittgenstein didn't intend Philosophical Investigations, of which a significant feature is about not being able to know another person's inner sensations from their outward behaviour, as irony.

On the one hand:

We can know that a baby is in pain even though she has no words to express her pain. — Fooloso4

On the other hand:

I am busy reading philosophy and have become convinced that I cannot know from the baby's behavior that she is in pain. — Fooloso4

How to resolve this quandary?

I don't know where you are trying to go with any of this. — Fooloso4

You said "We can know that a baby is in pain even though she has no words to express her pain."

How can you know the private sensations of another person just from their behaviour?

Do you acknowledge that your numbered sections 2 and 5 contradict each other? — Luke

2) PI 246 Well, only I can know whether I am really in pain; another person can only surmise it

5) PI 246 It can't be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain. What is it supposed to mean—except perhaps that I am in pain?

We both agree that 2) is the interlocutor

You believe that 5) is Wittgenstein. I am unsure.

As I wrote in my last post:

If we make the assumption that Wittgenstein is a sensible person, this infers that 3) is Wittgenstein. As 3) says that 2) is wrong, this infers that 2) is the interlocutor.

As it is unclear whether 5) is referring to a private language or the language game, it is unclear whether this is Wittgenstein's opinion or the interlocutor's

I don't understand what you mean by "a private language, ie. "myself"". — Luke

I agree when you say: "Wittgenstein repeatedly attacks the idea that a private language is possible"

I agree when you say "He (Wittgenstein) says "It can't be said of me at all.........that I know I am in pain" It is senseless to say "I know I am in pain""

Wittgenstein agrees in PI 304 that we can have private inchoate feelings, ie, sensations, but argues that no one else can ever know what these private feelings are. He is not just saying that a private language understood only by the speaker is impossible, but that the very existence of a private language is impossible. These private inchoate feelings can only be given form within a community of other minds using a language game, thereby breaking the problem of solipsism. Within the language game, when I say "I am in pain", I am not taking about my private personal experience, but rather talking about the concept of pain that exists in the minds of the community of which I am part.

In a private language, to say "I am in pain" requires no justification, other than "I know I am in pain because I am in pain", in which event the word "know" has no function.

However, in the language game, to say "I am in pain" does require a justification. For example, "I know I am in pain because I am experiencing both localized and generalized unpleasant bodily sensations causing me severe physical discomfort and emotional distress". In the language game, the word "know" does have a definite function.

5) PI 246 It can't be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain. What is it supposed to mean—except perhaps that I am in pain?

I interpret 5) as meaning that it would be unreasonable for me to say that "I know I am in pain", as this means no more than "I am in pain".

But the only situation where to say "I know I am in pain" requires no justification is in a private language, but as Wittgenstein attacks the idea of the possibility of a private language, 5) cannot be Wittgenstein's position but that of an interlocutor.

We can know that a baby is in pain even though she has no words to express her pain. — Fooloso4

Wittgenstein discusses pain-behaviour in PI 244, 282, 302, 304 and 393.

How can the word "pain" refer to a sensation pain.

We know a rock is not in pain because it expresses no pain behaviour, whereas we know a living human being can be in pain because it expresses pain-behaviour. Yet how do we know that a rock, even though not expressing pain-behaviour, is actually in pain, and how do we know that a child, expressing pain-behaviour, is not actually in pain. Does an actor on the stage need the private sensation of fear and loathing to be able to express the sensations of fear and loathing.

What is the function of language and words such as "pain". Perhaps not to convey thoughts about things such as houses, pains, good and evil, but rather, taking the case of pain, as a replacement for pain-behaviour, where the word "pain" replaces the pain-behaviour of crying rather than describing any unknown cause of the pain-behaviour.

How do you know someone is in pain, when all you know is pain-behaviour. When you say that you know someone is in pain, isn't all you saying that you know that they are expressing pain-behaviour. The word "pain" in the language game is replacing the observed pain-behaviour rather than describing an unknown something.

Is this not the same situation as for the direct Realist, who would say that if one observes something green in colour, then in the world is also something green in colour. The Direct Realist conflates effect with cause, equating what has been observed with an unknown cause of that observation. The Direct Realist would equate pain-behaviour, replaced in the language game by the word "pain", with the unknown something that is assumed to have caused such pain-behaviour, whether a beetle or a pain.

As Wittgenstein says, the beetle in the box is not a something but it is not a nothing either, meaning that even though everyone's beetle may be different, it is not a nothing.

As you say, either I am in pain or not, but whether it is the one or the other does not depend on language. — Fooloso4

As the pain you are referring to cannot be the beetle in the box, as the something in the box drops out of consideration in the language game, the pain you are referring to must be part of the language game, and therefore does depend on language.

PI 293 - If I say of myself that it is only from my own case that I know what the word "pain" means—must I not say the same of other people too? And how can I generalize the one case so irresponsibly? Now someone tells me that he knows what pain is only from his own case!——Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a "beetle". No one can look into anyone else's box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle.—Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box.

If it were something that I can 'know' then it is something I might not know. — Fooloso4

Yes, if the something is "the distance from the Earth to the Moon", then this is something that I may know or may not know.

If it makes no sense to say that I do not know if I am in pain then it makes no sense to say that I know I am in pain. — Fooloso4

"Pain" is a word that has a meaning in the language game, and there is no guarantee that I am using all my words correctly. For example, within the language game it makes sense to say "I do not know if I am in pain" if this means "I do not not know if I am in pain, it may be extreme soreness or just discomfort"

It makes sense to say in the language game "I do not know if I am in pain" if there is any doubt about my understanding of the word "pain".

It is more likely that the second sentence is not the interlocutor's...5) It can't be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain. What is it supposed to mean—except perhaps that I am in pain? — Luke

It seems to me that there can be no definitive reading of Wittgenstein because of inherent ambiguities with his text

I am partly repeating myself, but I think PI 246 does illustrate why many people dislike Wittgenstein, mainly because of the ambiguities in the text. PI 246 does illustrate that there cannot be one definitive reading of Wittgenstein, although his text is invaluable as a foundation for one's own ideas. Reading in context cannot solve the problem, only exacerbate the problem by increasing the number of ambiguities.

1) In what sense are my sensations private?

Ignoring the given text, what would be a sensible topic? For example, I have private sensations such as pain and hunger, and the question is, can anyone else ever know my private sensations. On the assumption that Wittgenstein is a sensible person, this infers that 1) is Wittgenstein.

2) Well, only I can know whether I am really in pain; another person can only surmise it
3) In one way this is wrong, and in another nonsense. If we are using the word "to know" as it is normally used (and how else are we to use it?), then other people very often know when I am in pain.

Ignoring which is the interlocutor and which is Wittgenstein, what do we already know from our personal experience. We know that it is common in everyday conversation to say "I know you are in pain over the death of your relative" rather than the less personal "I surmise you are in pain over the death of your relative". Therefore, 3) agrees with what we already know regardless of the given text. If we make the assumption that Wittgenstein is a sensible person, this infers that 3) is Wittgenstein. As 3) says that 2) is wrong, this infers that 2) is the interlocutor.

4) Yes, but all the same not with the certainty with which I know it myself

It is not immediately obvious whether Wittgenstein is referring to 2) or 3).

If he is referring to 2), then he would be saying "Only I know that I am pain, whilst others surmise it with less certainty than I know it myself ". But this clearly does not make sense as a sentence. Therefore 4) cannot be referring to 2).

Therefore he must be referring to 3). What he is saying in everyday language is that I can say "I know I am in pain" and someone else can say of me "I know he is in pain", but I know I am in pain with certainty and they know I am in pain with less certainty. IE, in everyday language, in the language game, the word know can be used to imply certainty, such as "I know it is raining", or to imply some uncertainty, such as "I know it will rain".

As 4) is a sensible thing to say, and assuming that Wittgenstein is a sensible person, this infers that 4) is Wittgenstein.

5) It can't be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain. What is it supposed to mean—except perhaps that I am in pain?

Ignoring the text, what would be a sensible topic? As regards my private language, the word "know" in the phrase "I know I am in pain" is redundant and serves no useful purpose, and therefore would only make sense if said as a joke. As regards the language game, to say "I know I am in pain" would make sense, and therefore wouldn't be considered as being used as a joke.

Therefore if 5) refers to a private language, then it would be a sensible thing to say, and assuming Wittgenstein to be a sensible person, then 5) would be Wittgenstein. But if 5) refers to the language game, then it wouldn't be a sensible thing to say, and assuming Wittgenstein to be a sensible person, then 5) would be the interlocutor

As it is unclear whether 5) is referring to a private language or the language game, it is unclear whether this is Wittgenstein's opinion or the interlocutor's

6) Other people cannot be said to learn of my sensations only from my behaviour,—for I cannot be said to learn of them. I have them.

Ignoring the text, in everyday conversation it would be a sensible thing to say that if someone saw my crying, and had never experienced pain themselves, then they couldn't learn the sensation of pain just from observing someone else's pain-behaviour. On the other hand, if I feel a pain and then cry, I am not learning the sensation of pain from my crying.

Assuming Wittgenstein to be a sensible person, as 6) is a sensible thing to say, 6) must be Wittgenstein.

7) The truth is: it makes sense to say about other people that they doubt whether I am in pain; but not to say it about myself.

Ignoring the given text, as regards my private language, as with the word "know", the word "doubt" in the phrase "I doubt that I am in pain" is redundant and serves no useful purpose. If I am in pain, there is no doubt in my mind that I am in pain. However in the language game, as another person can only judge my private sensations from my outward pain-behaviour, it makes sense that they should doubt whether I am in pain or not.

The problem within 7) is that Wittgenstein seems to be mixing up references on the one hand to a private language, ie, "myself", and on the other hand to other people and the language game, ie "other people".

Overall however, accepting that Wittgenstein is mixing up his references, 7) seems to be Wittgenstein.

How can Wittgenstein in PI 246 use examples from a private language whilst arguing that private languages are unintelligible?

My problem with PI 246 is that part refers to a private language and part refers to a public language game, yet in PI 244 to 271 Wittgenstein attacks the idea of any private language as unintelligible not only to the originator but also to any listener.

For example, item 7) The truth is: it makes sense to say about other people that they doubt whether I am in pain; but not to say it about myself.

The phrase "it makes sense to say about other people that they doubt whether I am in pain"
makes sense within a language game, involving not only me but other people.

But the phrase "but not to say it about myself" initially seems to be within a private language, but as Wittgenstein says that private languages are unintelligible, this infers that even to say "I am in pain" is within the language game.

Then if all our talk about our own pain is within the language game, then it is more than acceptable to say "I know I am in pain".

Does it make sense to say "I don't know if I'm in pain"? — Fooloso4

In a private language it wouldn't make sense, as either "I am in pain" or "I am not in pain". Adding the word "know" would be redundant.

However Wittgenstein in PI 244 to 271 attacks the idea of any private language. He argued that any such private language would be unintelligible not only to the originator but also to any listener.

Wittgenstein in PI 293 uses the beetle in the box analogy to show that words such as "pain" in the language game are disconnected from whatever unknown thing there is in the mind of the individual, whether a sensation of pain or anything else, as such an unknown thing has no place in the language game at all.

Therefore in the language game of everyday conversation, it does make sense to say "I don't know if I'm answering the question", "I don't know if I'm in Nevada" or "I don't know if I'm correct".

It also depends on how the word accurately describes one's sensations, such as "I don't know if I'm in pain or just discomfort", "I don't know if I'm in pain or emotionally tormented", "I don't know if I'm in pain or extremely sore".

Or perhaps the speaker doesn't have a complete understanding of the meaning of the words, such as a speaker of a foreign language. Perhaps a Spaniard who doesn't know how to translate the word "dolor", or a German who wants the nearest equivalent to "schmerzen".

There are many occasions within the language game when it makes sense to say "I don't know if I'm in pain".

Wittgenstein indicates that it does not make any sense to say "I know I am in pain". — Luke

Wittgenstein attacks the idea of a private language
Wittgenstein in PI 246 includes the idea that to say "I know I am in pain" may only be said as a joke:
PI 246 It can't be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain. What is it supposed to mean—except perhaps that I am in pain?

In which situation is Wittgenstein thinking about whereby to say "I know I am in pain" would be nonsense?

If I said either "I am in pain" or "I know I am in pain", either I am having a conversation with myself or a conversation with others.

If I am having a conversation with myself, the statement "I am in pain" is sufficient, as no justification is possible nor needed. Any justification would be self-referential, along the lines "I know I am in pain because I know I am pain". In this situation, when conversing with myself, to say "I know I am in pain" would be nonsense.

Referring to SEP Private Language, Wittgenstein in PI 244 to 271 attacks the idea of any private language, as any such private language would be unintelligible not only to the originator but also to any listener. Therefore the only situation where "I know I am in pain" may be said as a joke is in a private language, which Wittgenstein attacks as unintelligible.

One therefore concludes that the sentence in PI 246 has been spoken by the interlocutor, not Wittgenstein.

Wittgenstein's Language Game
However, if I am having a conversation with others, then to say "I know I am pain" is no longer nonsensical, but an accepted and reasonable normal part of language. It is normal to say "I know I am in Paris", "I know it is time to leave" or "I know governments are necessary".

As one can say in normal language both "I am in Paris" and "I know I am in Paris", it is surely acceptable to say both "I am in pain" and "I know I am in pain".

Within the language game, the word "pain" refers to a general concept contained within the language game rather than any particular sensation within a person.

In PI 293. Wittgenstein discusses a beetle in a box, where the beetle has no place in the language game at all and drops out of consideration as irrelevant. The particular private sensation of pain is the beetle in the box, and as such cannot be talked about. Within the language game the word "pain" is a concept, something general rather than particular, and refers to a general concept rather than a particular sensation .

"I am in Paris" is a belief. Whether true or not depends on whether one is in Paris.

"I know I am in Paris" is a belief that in order to be true needs to be followed by a justification that one is in Paris, such as "because I can see the Eiffel Tower".

"I am in pain" is a belief. Whether true or not depends on whether one is using the word "pain" correctly.

"I know I am in pain" is a belief that in order to be true needs to be followed by a justification that one is using the word "pain" correctly, such as "because others say they are in pain when in the same situation as I am"

The above are justified beliefs. Knowledge requires them to be true. What makes propositions such as "I know I am in Paris"or "I know I am in pain" true? They cannot be made true by facts in the world, such as I am truly in Paris or I am truly in pain, as within Wittgenstein's language game, the object, the beetle in the box, drops out of consideration and cannot be talked about.

Wittgenstein's Hinge Propositions
This takes us into On Certainty, notes on knowledge, doubt, scepticism and certainty.

Referring to Wikipedia Here is one Hand, the book's starting position is GE Moore's A Proof of the External World. Wittgenstein asks how Moore knows he is holding up a hand, as any knowledge claim can be doubted.

Moore argued against scepticism in favour of common sense by making the following argument: i) here is one hand, ii) and here is another, iii) there are at least two external objects in the world, iv) therefore, an external world exists.

Wittgenstein says that propositions such as "here is a hand" should not be thought of as empirical statements open to doubt, but rather as a "hinge proposition" that cannot be doubted. Hinge propositions are part of the framework of a logical language, on which other propositions are built. The proposition "here is a hand" is establishing how "hand" is to be used within a coherent language game, not making an empirical claim about the existence of a hand in the world.

Hinge propositions are the foundation of a language game, thereby creating a coherent whole that cannot be doubted. The truth of a proposition within the language game comes from such hinge propositions, not facts in the world, not whether or not I am truly in Paris or truly in pain.

Knowledge is justified true belief. Moore believes that the external world exists. He justifies his belief by pointing out that at least two objects exist in the world and founded on the hinge proposition that here is a hand that exists in the world. Moore can then say that "I know the world exists because here is a hand" rather than make the unjustified statement that "the world exists".

Wittgenstein in PI 244 writes about words as replacing rather than describing pain-behaviour
A child has hurt himself and he cries; and then adults talk to him and teach him exclamations and, later, sentences. They teach the child new pain-behaviour. "So you are saying that the word 'pain' really means crying?"— On the contrary: the verbal expression of pain replaces crying and does not describe it.

Summary
Similarly, I believe that pain exists. I justify my belief by pointing out that I cry when suffering from pain and founded on the hinge proposition that one cries when suffering pain. I can then say that "I know I am in pain because I cry when suffering" rather than the unjustified "I am in pain".

Within Wittgenstein's Language Game, it makes sense to say "I know I am in pain".

I would consider "Yes, but all the same..." to be a reaction or response to Wittgenstein's unbolded remarks that immediately precede it, which I believe are made in a different voice — Luke

I'm not saying I'm necessarily right, but it does force one to be very careful when reading Wittgenstein.

My reading of PI 246, where Wittgenstein is unbolded and the interlocutor is bolded

1) In what sense are my sensations private?
2) Well, only I can know whether I am really in pain; another person can only surmise it
3) In one way this is wrong, and in another nonsense. If we are using the word "to know" as it is normally used (and how else are we to use it?), then other people very often know when I am in pain.
4) Yes, but all the same not with the certainty with which I know it myself I
5) It can't be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain. What is it supposed to mean—except perhaps that I am in pain?
6) Other people cannot be said to learn of my sensations only from my behaviour,—for I cannot be said to learn of them. I have them.
7) The truth is: it makes sense to say about other people that they doubt whether I am in pain; but not to say it about myself.

I agree that 2) is the interlocutor and 3) is Wittgenstein. I agree that 4) is a disagreement with what came before it. However, both 2) and 3) came before it.

Reading whereby 4) disagrees with 2) rather than 3)
Then 3) is also Wittgenstein, where he is saying that the idea that another person can only surmise that I am pain is wrong. In fact, they don't surmise it but know it, although with less certainty than myself. This agrees with the normal use of the word "to know", when we say "I know you are suffering at the moment", accepting that one cannot know another person's suffering with the intensity that one knows one's own.

This all hangs on your assumption that he is linking certainty with knowing in PI 246. — Luke

Whether Wittgenstein is linking certainty with knowing depends on whether 4) is that of the interlocutor or Wittgenstein.

If my reading is correct, then Wittgenstein is linking certainty with knowing.

A lot to think about.

It's unclear what distinction you think there should be between sensation and concept, or how you think this distinction would help — Luke

A "cube" is an example of a concept. Wittgenstein is saying that we know and understand the word "cube" not from the sensation of seeing a picture of it but rather from how the word is used.
PI 139 When someone says the word "cube" to me, for example, I know what it means.

Wittgenstein is asking how we know the role of the King in a game of chess. In broader terms, how do we know the rules of the language-game. He says that it is not by definition, which leads to the problem of circularity, but rather from observing how other people use the King when playing chess. We learn concepts from how the concept is used over a period of time, rather than from any momentary definition or particular sensation.
PI 31In this case we shall say: the words "This is the king" (or "This is called the 'king' ") are a definition only if the learner already 'knows what a piece in a game is'. That is, if he has already played other games, or has watched other people playing 'and understood'—and similar things.

For Wittgenstein, sensations are particular and immediate events, such as a smell, a touch, a pain.
PI 24 Think how many different kinds of thing are called "description": description of a body's position by means of its co-ordinates; description of a facial expression; description of a sensation of touch; of a mood.

There are two aspects to the word "pain". The general universal concept, as with any concept, such as house, love, government, trees and the particular momentary sensation, such as a biting pain, an acrid smell, a bitter taste. Both aspects of the word must be taken into account to avoid ambiguity in any paragraph.

I imagine that only a very small percentage of discussion (or language use) is about our knowledge of concepts — Luke

I agree that in normal conversation we don't talk about the meaning of the concepts we use, but rather just use them. That being said, as a concept is an abstract idea, I would have said that every word we use in the language-game is a concept. The language game is a game of concepts.

However, in Wittgenstein's terms, our knowledge of the concepts we use in the language game doesn't come from discussing them in a definitional sense, but rather from using them. It is true that definitions are invaluable in helping us gain knowledge of the concepts we use, but only in structuring the relationship between concepts, not in explaining the meaning of an individual concept.

We may not specifically discuss our knowledge of concepts, but concepts are the foundation of any discussion we have.

If 246 seems contradictory, it may be because Wittgenstein speaks in more than one voice — Luke

I agree that his sentence "Well, only I can know whether I am really in pain; another person can only surmise it." is that of the interlocutor.

However, I am not so sure that his sentence"Yes, but all the same, not with the certainty with which I know it myself!" is that of the interlocutor or his own position.

For example, Wittgenstein writes that he has sensations
PI 246 Other people cannot be said to learn of my sensations only from my behaviour,—for I cannot be said to learn of them. I have them

He also writes that he doesn't doubt his sensations
PI 246 - The truth is: it makes sense to say about other people that they doubt whether I am in pain; but not to say it about myself.

He also links indubitability with certainty.
From the SEP article on Certainty: Ludwig Wittgenstein also seems to connect certainty with indubitability.
From OC 115: If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.

In PI 246 he is linking certainty with knowing.
Yes, but all the same not with the certainty with which I know it myself

As the trail leads from his having sensation that he doesn't doubt, to linking indubitability with certainty and then linking certainty with knowing, this suggests that this statement is his own position rather than that of an interlocutor.

He says that others (often) know when he is in pain. He does not say that he (also) knows when he is in pain. As he states later in the passage, it can't be said of him at all that he knows he is in pain. — Luke

If I said "I don't know I am in pain", this means that I don't know the meaning of the concept "pain", and therefore don't know whether my sensation is that of pain or not, For example, my sensation could be that of hunger.

Therefore, to say "I know I am in pain" means that I do know the meaning of the concept "pain", and therefore do know that my sensation is that of pain.

To say "I am in pain" means that I do know the meaning of the concept "pain", and therefore do know that my sensation is that of pain.

The statements "I know I am in pain" and "I am in pain" have an identical meaning, ie, as I know the meaning of the concept "pain", I know that my sensation is that of pain.

Therefore, it is allowable within the language game to say "I know I am in pain", as it has the same meaning as "I am in pain".

I don’t believe redundancy is the reason why “it can’t be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain.” What sort of joke would it be to redundantly say “I know I’m in pain”? — Luke

PI 246 is contradictory in that it doesn't distinguish between sensation and concept

In what sense are my sensations private?—Well, only I can know whether I am really in pain; another person can only surmise it.—In one way this is wrong, and in another nonsense

Wittgenstein is saying that it is said that only I know that I am in pain, whereas others can only surmise it. But he is surely saying that this is wrong because others also know that I am in pain.

If we are using the word "to know" as it is normally used (and how else are we to use it?), then other people very often know when I am in pain.— Yes, but all the same not with the certainty with which I know it myself

Wittgenstein is saying that others know I am in pain, but not with the same certainty that I know when I am in pain. The problem arises that Wittgenstein is not distinguishing between knowing a concept and knowing a sensation.

It can't be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain. What is it supposed to mean—except perhaps that I am in pain?

Wittgenstein is saying that when others say "he knows he is in pain", this is grammatically incorrect and means no more that "he is in pain". It is possible that someone could use a grammatically incorrect phrase as a joke.

However, in order to say "I am in pain", this presupposes that not only "I am having the sensation of pain" but also "I know the concept of pain". For example, if I didn't know the concept of pain, I wouldn't be able to distinguish between "I am in pain" and "I am hungry". Therefore the proposition "I am in pain" is shorthand for "I am having the sensation of pain and I know the concept of pain".

Other people cannot be said to learn of my sensations only from my behaviour,—for I cannot be said to learn of them. I have them.

The key word is "only". It is true that other people cannot learn of another's sensations purely from that person's behaviour if they didn't have their own sensations that produced the same behaviour in themselves.

The truth is: it makes sense to say about other people that they doubt whether I am in pain; but not to say it about myself

Wittgenstein is saying that although it makes sense for others to doubt that I am in pain, it makes no sense for me to doubt that I am in pain.

PI 246 is contradictory in that Wittgenstein doesn't distinguish between sensation and concept. On the one hand he uses the word "know" to refer to a concept: If we are using the word "to know" as it is normally used (and how else are we to use it?), then other people very often know when I am in pain.— Yes, but all the same not with the certainty with which I know it myself and on the other hand he uses the word "know" to refer to a sensation: It can't be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain. What is it supposed to mean—except perhaps that I am in pain?

Wittgenstein rejects the idea that we can know our private sensations. — Luke

PI 246 can be considered as having five separate parts.

Part one
In what sense are my sensations private?

He asks the question

Part two
Well, only I can know whether I am really in pain; another person can only surmise it.—In one way this is wrong, and in another nonsense. If we are using the word "to know" as it is normally used (and how else are we to use it?), then other people very often know when I am in pain.— Yes, but all the same not with the certainty with which I know it myself

It is true that it is often said that only I know I am in pain and other people can only surmise it.

But clearly this is in a sense wrong, otherwise it would be socially acceptable to kick dogs, for example, which is obviously not the case. So we do clearly know when other people are in pain, not just that we surmise it .

It comes down to the exact meaning of "know". This often depends on context. In one sense we do know when a loved one is in pain, but in another sense we cannot really know the pain of another person.

The word "know" has different levels of certainty. I know with certainty my own pain, and even though I know others feel pain, I can only know with less certainty their pain.

Part three
It can't be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain. What is it supposed to mean—except perhaps that I am in pain?

The word "know" seems to be redundant in the two propositions "I know I am in pain" and "I am in pain". Does that mean we can reject the idea that we can know our private sensations.

From PI 293, the thing in the box that has no place in the language-game is the sensation of pain. When he writes "I know what the word "pain" means", he is referring to the word "pain" as a concept in the language-game.

However, in order to say "I am in pain", I must already know the concept "pain". Therefore saying "I am in pain" is shorthand for saying that not only do I know the concept "pain" but also I know that my sensation has the name "pain".

If I know that my private sensation has a name, then it follows that I must also know that I am having a private sensation.

But if I know that I am having a private sensation, then I must know the private sensation that I am having.

IE, I can know a private sensation.

Part four
Other people cannot be said to learn of my sensations only from my behaviour,—for I cannot be said to learn of them. I have them.

He is saying that other people cannot learn his private sensations from his external behaviour as well as saying that I don't learn my sensations, I just have them.

Part five
The truth is: it makes sense to say about other people that they doubt whether I am in pain; but not to say it about myself

He is saying it makes sense to say that he has no doubt that he is in pain, whereas other people may doubt that he is in pain.

I don’t believe that the quote supports your reading. — Luke

In PI 246, Wittgenstein writes that he knows his private sensations with certainty, whereas other people only know his private sensations with less certainty.

He writes that he doesn't doubt that he is in pain, whereas other people may doubt that he is in pain.

Wittgenstein is introducing the concepts of doubt and certainty, which led to his book On Certainty. As AC Grayling said, a book of "serious philosophy".

Consider On Certainty (OC) 504, "Whether I know something depends on whether the evidence backs me up or contracts me. For to say one knows one has pain means nothing. " — Richard B

It is true that in a sense to say one has the sensation of green means nothing, as the sensation of green is a private subjective experience and cannot be described in words. For example, how could you describe the colour violet to a person who cannot experience colours. When we do use the word "green" in language, this is a label and not a description.

As Wittgenstein writes in PI 15
The word "to signify" is perhaps used in the most straightforward way when the object signified is marked with the sign. Suppose that the tools A uses in building bear certain marks. When A shews his assistant such a mark, he brings the tool that has that mark on it. It is in this and more or less similar ways that a name means and is given to a thing.—It will often prove useful in philosophy to say to ourselves: naming something is like attaching a label to a thing.

and also in PI 26
One thinks that learning language consists in giving names to objects. Viz, to human beings, to shapes, to colours, to pains, to moods, to numbers, etc. . To repeat—naming is something like attaching a label to a thing.

Or, OC 548, "A child must learn the use of colour words before it can ask for the name of a colour." Again, the emphasis here is language use, not recognition of color sensations. — Richard B

Words labelling inner private sensations are only possible if there is some outward sign of such inner private sensation. As Wittgenstein writes in PI 257:
"What would it be like if human beings shewed no outward signs of pain (did not groan, grimace, etc.)? Then it would be impossible to teach a child the use of the word 'tooth-ache'."

Even when there is an outward sign of an inner experience, such an outward sign does not describe the inner experience but only shows that there has been one. As Wittgenstein writes in PI 244:
"So you are saying that the word 'pain' really means crying?"—On the contrary: the verbal expression of pain replaces crying and does not describe it.

Language labels inner experiences, not describe them.

Consider OC 505, "It is always by favor of Nature that one knows something." Notice he is not saying it is by the favor of our awareness of private sensations that one knows something. This is evidence he would not support Indirect Realism. — Richard B

Indirect Realism is a direct knowledge of the mind and an indirect knowledge of the world.

Wittgenstein in PI 246 writes that we know our private sensations:
In what sense are my sensations private?—Well, only I can know whether I am really in pain; another person can only surmise it.—In one way this is wrong, and in another nonsense. If we are using the word "to know" as it is normally used (and how else are we to use it?), then other people very often know when I am in pain.— Yes, but all the same not with the certainty with which I know it myself I—It can't be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain. What is it supposed to mean—except perhaps that I am in pain? Other people cannot be said to learn of my sensations only from my behaviour,—for I cannot be said to learn of them. I have them. The truth is: it makes sense to say about other people that they doubt whether I am in pain; but not to say it about myself.

It is true that he writes in OC 505 that "It is always by favour of Nature that one knows something", but what does he mean by this. It could mean that we know the private sensation of pain because a heavy object has fallen on our foot.

Taking the example of the Earth as something that exists in nature, throughout On Certainty, Wittgenstein writes about the belief in the existence of the Earth not from direct knowledge but from a coherent set of evidence that points to its existence.

He writes in OC 291 about his belief that the earth is round
We know that the earth is round. We have definitively ascertained that it is round.
We shall stick to this opinion, unless our whole way of seeing nature changes. "How do you know that?" - I believe it.

He writes in OC 231 that his beliefs in the earth are supported by evidence
If someone doubted whether the earth had existed a hundred years ago, I should not understand, for this reason: I would not know what such a person would still allow to be counted as evidence and what not

He writes in OC 165 that a belief in the earth has been learnt
One child might say to another: "I know that the earth is already hundred of years old" and that would mean: I have learnt it.

As Wittgenstein writes that we directly know our sensations and only indirectly believe in the world, this is the position of an Indirect Realist.

I will leave this discussion with one more quote from Wittgenstein from "Culture and Value" which suggest the importance of what can and cannot be said, "Couldn't one actually say equally well that the essence of colour guarantees its existence? — Richard B

Although the private sensation of green cannot be said, the word "green" can be said within the language game. For Wittgenstein, we first know the private sensation green and then use the word "green" as a label for these private sensations, not as descriptions of them.

This is clarified by the Beetle in the Box analogy in PI 293
If I say of myself that it is only from my own case that I know what the word "pain" means—must I not say the same of other people too? And how can I generalize the one case so irresponsibly? Now someone tells me that he knows what pain is only from his own case!——Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a "beetle". No one can look into anyone else's box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle.—Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing.—But suppose the word "beetle" had a use in these people's language?—If so it would not be used as the name of a thing. The thing in the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something: for the box might even be empty.—No, one can 'divide through' by the thing in the box; it cancels out, whatever it is. That is to say: if we construe the grammar of the expression of sensation on the model of 'object and designation' the object drops out of consideration as irrelevant.

But it’s no problem if you make the quotations obvious in future. — Jamal

As I accepted, point taken, and I will be more careful in the future.