: what is wittgenstein’s private language argument?
In: 6
[Warning: Not an expert.]
So, generally what we use are called shared languages, and their purpose is to make connections between my thoughts and your thoughts.
For me to ask you “if I make an apple pie, would you have some?”, I have to have the concept of apple pie in my brain, you have to have the concept of apple pie in your brain, and then we need to have a symbol we’ve agreed on, like “apple pie” or “tarte aux pommes”, that makes both our brains think of the same thing. As long as we both have that, we have a shared language.
If you’re good with that – some peoples’ reaction to that was “why do you need the second person? If my brain knows what apple pie is, and the word “florx” makes me think of it, isn’t that enough? You could call that a private language, as long as nobody else knows what I mean when I say “florx”. It’s still a connection between an idea and a sound/symbol, and that’s what language really is.”
Wittgenstein didn’t like that idea, and argued that you need other people to ‘anchor’ the meaning of your language. When it’s private, there’s nothing to stop you from forgetting or mistaking the meaning of something; no way to verify that anything expressed in the language is correct. (For example, when the language is private it’s hard to be sure if “florx” means “apple pie”, “round”, “singular object”, “delicious”, “hot”, “iconically American” or something else.)
The trouble is, if Wittgenstein’s right that a language isn’t “valid” when it only exists in one person’s head, then we might also have problems with the validity of similar things like experiences, memories or identity.
Latest Answers