i have a question about the philosopher ludwig wittgenstein...?

Question

after readon his private language argument he basicaly shows that solipsism ans skepticism are false and that they are self refuting, flawed and basurd and impossible.

so with his prvate language arguement proving that there absolutely has to be other minds that are not your own in order to create a language then how is it that solipsism and skepticism is considered irrefutable?

is the ONLY reason its considered "irrefutable" is because we can only experiece ourselves? what i now understand about skepticism is that it is shown to be logicaly impossible but we cant exactly "know" its impossible because because we can only "know" our own experiences. just like you cant "know" that there are monsters that come out once you sleep. but other than that its shown as logicaly inconsistent and self refuting correct?

Answer 1

It's vital to understand that Wittgenstein was always thinking like a linguist/philologist. If he had bothered to brush up on Kurt Godel or Werner Heisenberg, he would have had a completely different view. For example, after Einstein, many physicists went out to prove that irrefutable ideas were, in fact, 'refutable'. Heisenberg gave us uncertainty and Godel gave us incomlpeteness.

Think about another linguist: Benjamin Whorf. Without belaboring Whorf's hypothesis, he based research on the Hopi Indian language. His conclusion was that the Hopi were somewhat stunted because they had no proper concept of time. Whorf saw this fact as irrefutable.

But it was Whorf who was too dopey to properly learn Hopi! The Hopi express two concepts, the past and the now, because they know 'the now' is what matters. The Hopi were expressing the advanced idea that the future does not exist until we've made it there, and that makes it the present.

Yet Whorf used that as an example of how people cannot have language without first having experience- an absurd idea.

Sprry to ramble. Hope I helped.

Answer 2

If you are convinced that the private language argument is absolutely correct, you are probably jumping to conclusions. It's a contentious matter, and you should be more skeptical. Isn't it possible that the "check" on correct application for a term could come from something non-sentient? Just a thought.

Also, if the PLArgument goes though, it only refutes a narrow form of skepticism, namely, solipsism. It says that other minds exist, not that we aren't living in the Matrix or something. It's even possible that only one mind exists and is creating a bunch of fake zombie people to create a language for me. The language is, unbeknownst to me, a public one between (only) myself and this evil demon.

Wittgenstein has an interesting argument, but there's still wiggle room for the skeptic. It isn't "logically impossible."

Answer 3

'so with his private language argument proving that there absolutely has to be other minds that are not your own in order to create a language then how is it that solipsism and skepticism is considered irrefutable?....is the ONLY reason its considered "irrefutable" is because we can only experience ourselves? '

When logic is considered as a thing not having past existence or a portion of logic is rejected for an other logic, like in Bishop Berkeley and his indifference for the word 'nothing' as serving equally as the word 'matter', then a word's ambiguous and synonymous nature is irrelevant for such people, but we know we can not treat them as such. Either you get into trouble or you do not and all that may depend on your ability to read road signs correctly.

Solipsism no, skepticism, define it.


http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/berkeley.htm

Answer 4

Search the Answers for "Wittgenstein" before asking. Either lots of people keep asking the same obscure question, or you keep needlessly asking it.

Answer 5

I asked him this question and he said F off? so I tried..The answer seems to be 12..