Robert wrote: "The first sentence [i.e. 'For Wittgenstein, any language is, in principle, open to understanding by any language user'] might be close to what Wittgenstein's views would look like after having been run through a Cuisinart, ... What troubles me is the generality of the two sentences in quotes. It's as if 'scholars,' or 'philosophers' had pretty much agreed that there are some main theses or doctrines in the Investigations, but were quarreling over just what they were and what form they should take. Let me suggest that this is not a fruitful way to approach the Investigations. The book is neither a collection of aphorisms, nor an extended philosophical argument concerning one or two clearly defined positions; such arguments having pretty much the the form of philosophical treatises which are full of therefors and hences and thus-we-may-concludes. A warning of where philosophers go wrong can be found in the Blue Book, where he calls attention to their 'craving for generality,' and their 'contempt for the particular case' (something he accuses Socrates of). He resists that craving, and scorns such contempt, in his later writings. 'Don't think, but look,' he says, admonishing Socrates' ghost. Enough. I am not made for a discussion of Wittgenstein's theses or principles, so I will withdraw, and leave the subject matter to those who are." While I am very much sympathetic to Robert's point about the dangers of the 'craving for generality', I don't think this should lead to the dismissal of generalities, even in the case of Wittgenstein's writings. There is a role for generalities, though I would agree with Wittgenstein, that this role is not nearly as significant as most philosophers believe. In this light, I will re-assert my original claim that, in general, for Wittgenstein, any language is, in principle, open to understanding by any language user. I generalized from the more specific argument that there can be no private language, because it would be impossible to learn, and it would never be clear to oneself that one is following the rules of that language. If all language is public, it is therefore observable to any other language user. Now, in practice, there will be limitations. There are limits to understanding itself, so that, for example, the child will find it virtually impossible to understand quantum physics, and very few humans understand what it is required to have to hunt and kill for all of one's food. These limits are not the result of there being some private experience that accompanies being a physicist or a lion, but rather the consequence of the unfamiliarity of these forms of life. However, a child may grow up to study physics and circumstances may dictate that an individual have to learn how to hunt for their food, like a lion. In both of these cases, the individual may learn to understand quantum physics and learn to understand lions. Now, this may be 'Cuisinart' thinking, but then I am not sure what isn't. Sincerely, Phil Enns ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html