Private Language??

Question:For anyone familiar with Wittgenstein:

Do you believe that there can be no such thing as a private language?

What do you think he is trying to say in the Investigations?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: For anyone familiar with Wittgenstein:

Do you believe that there can be no such thing as a private language?

What do you think he is trying to say in the Investigations?

Well, all those examples given to you above are public languages in the sense that they carry messages that can be translated somehow or learned by anyone so someone else could indeed understand it.

The same would happen to the last of the speaker of, lets say, Yagán (a language spoken in Tierra del Fuego, about which there are only one or two speakers left on all the earth). Practical issues about translation are not the main issue with the concept of private versus public language.

I don't know the discussion like I'd like to, but I can figure out some points in favour of a personal (not authoritative view).

I do believe that the phenomenon of language implies strongly that there is something more than one's own head. I mean, language implies that solipsism is false. You could not have a system of symbols if they would not refer in a strong sense to things outside them. Pure a pure symbolic and solipsistic world is impossible if in fact, languages have meaning, because the meaning of a set of symbols, lets say, 'sun', 'I', 'You', 'goes', 'shines', etc., wouldn't refer to anything specifically then any chain of them would mean anything, i.e. if symbols would not carry one meaning understandable for more than one, then they could mean anything and so, carry no message at all. 'Give me please a glass of water' would not discard the possibility of 'Shoot me with that gun' or '2 is the number after 1 if the moon is up'. So if symbols carry A meaning, the transmit specific portions of information, then that implies necessary that languages so understood, imply the existence of something outside the head.

I think that if the phenomenon of language is taken to imply the existence of other people in a way such that, then the hypothesis of the public language is false. You can have a lonely Robinson Crusoe, immortal and all mighty if you like, but if he has a language in the sense specified above, then that shows necessarily that he is not the only existent thing (against solipsism). The publicity of language Instead of implying that there are other minds like mine out there that can in fact understand my expressions, it only implies something much more cautious, but in an important way, something much more important; that the world is NOT in my head, even if I am the only concious being in the universe.

To rule out the possibility that we in fact do not have a language that carries meaning and that 'linguistical understanding' is just some kind of illusion, is a hard thing to prove also. To prove that we have, grasp and use a meaningful language would imply that Cartesian extreme scepticism is false by a non-traditional way to answer to her.

So, summarizing, if we do in fact have meaningful languages, imply that not everything is under our control in the realm of our heads. Probably we would still be alone, but we would not be extensionally the same thing as the world.

I hope I addressed the worrying you have and say something meaningful to what you were looking for.

My family and I have a private language we made up. It's relatively simple once you know the key, but it sounds really strange and I've never had another person who does not know the key understand a single word of it.

It's kind of funny, really. People think we are speaking Czech or something, but really, all we are doing is a complicated for of spelling in plain English!

yes very eaisly. In 3rd through 5th grade my friends and I, had made some, till teachers cracked it..

Many fraternal organizations have a private lingo. Sound's like regular words to the uninitiated when if fact they are carefully chosen phrases that covey esoteric meanings. They can be very subtle.

If a language were incommunicable then it could not truly be a language. Language is communication. Feelings and impressions can sometimes be like a private language in the sense you're talking about because they can sometimes be incommunicable-- but they are not truly a language. But I am unfamiliar with the book you're talking about so this is just my humble opinion based on what you've written.

Ever watched "Nell"? Sure we can.

I believe that everyone has a private language because our understanding of terms is coloured by our individual experiences. E.g. your definition of mind or reality may differ from mine since I make the assumption that our existence is merely an elaborate dream. I therefore see reality as merely a useful myth that corresponds to experience.

In my lectures at uni the example of a rabbit was given. If someone points top a hopping rabit and says a word of another language, are they refering to the animal or the something to with hoppiness.

If I say the word cat I have images of my cats playing whereas a bologist might think of a specific genotype. Your experiences of cats may differ greatly from mine and therefore your concept of what "cat" means may be different.

In my private language I use the term "miracle puss" to usually refer to a specific "cat" of that name but I may also be refering to a subset of cats that miraculously appear when people wish for them.

This term originally was one I used to describe such a subset to myself but now I have spoken about it to you and others it is no longer completely private, but since you have not met the same magical cats as I have you will have a different ideas in your mind to the precise meaning I meant to convey.

Thus the term is still partly private in nature.

I have not read Wittgenstein lately but he might be refering to the fact that once we start using terms with others we amend or negociate our meanings to fit with words that others use. Similarly the words we use in our thoughts are a combination of instinctive and learned aspects. Both of which are mostly shared. E.g. our genetics and social backgrounds are very similar.