does the following say that he private language argument is wrong or right??
One famous argument along these lines is the private language argument of Wittgenstein. In brief, this states that since language is for communication, and communication requires two participants, the existence of language in the mind of the thinker means the existence of another mind to communicate with. There is a direct fallacy in this: either, language is for communication between two agents, in which case it is still to be proved that what is in the head of the agent is a language, or what is in the head of the agent is language, in which case it is yet to be proved that language is for communication between two minds. To complicate the situation, the language in the mind of the agent may be for communication between the agent at this time, and the agent at a future time. However, this is no objection to the original argument, which explicitly mentions a kind of "diary" and therefore communication across time.
2007-03-25 21:56:50 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
He doesn't make sense at all... he is talking nonsense to try to make the first argument seem wrong... there is no fallacy in it.... Come on.... Language is for comunication purposes only... and comunication happens only if there are two thinking agents....
That's all it says (the first argument by Wittgenstein)... and it makes total sense... trying to think out of the box in this one is not intelligent as in other cases... it is just common sense what Witt is saying in this one...
Language wouldn't exist without the need of two agents to communicate...
Communication is a mean of getting the other person to know what you mean... a common language for both agents must be created to communicate (make yourself understood) with other thinking agent....
***It is such a logic thing... that even by reading definition out of a dictionary anybody can make Witt argument work and make it part of common sense... I am impressed some people actually try to challenge common sense like that...***
Hope that helps...
CHRIS
2007-03-25 22:05:57 · answer #1 · answered by CRA 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would have to say that ol' Witty was out of his mind. As the previous user said, language is used explicitly between two people; you are communicating your intentions to another outside of yourself in order to achieve something. Without another person around, language is pointless. You know your own intentions without your inner dialogue chattering away. So there is no "second mind" to communicate in that sense. As for the argument that the dialogue may be you communicating to your future self only works if you figure that YOU right now is NOT YOU a second (or whatever) from now. So, whoooooo are you, who-who, who-who? [Sorry, couldn't resist.]
2007-03-26 05:53:49 · answer #2 · answered by theoryparker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no i'm not reading all that sorry
2007-03-26 05:05:19 · answer #3 · answered by JOhNe=mc² 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋