[Wittrs] Re: Private Language Argument
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:27:15 -0700
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 4:22 PM, iro3isdx <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, brendan downs <wittrs@...> wrote:
>
>
>> If we follow arguments from the 3 great Empiricists Locke-(ideaism),
>> Berekely-(Idealism) and Hume(solipism) we arrive at the private
>> language argument
>
> I somehow had the impression that Wittgenstein's "Private Language"
> argument was opposed to Locke.
>
> Regards,
> Neil
It's a reductio ad absurdum in a lot of ways, i.e. IF we were to
imagine "internal objects" on the model of a beetle in a box
(unshowable to others, too private to ever share), THEN it would turn
out that we really wouldn't need to care what a "beetle" is (it could
pretty much be anything) or, by the same token, whether "my beetle" is
the same as "your beetle" (not interesting, not important, not even
sensible to discuss).
The conclusion is not that "pain doesn't exist" or something silly,
but that the private beetle in a box image is just one more of those
misleading, bewitching analogies that one subscribes to at one's
peril.
Kirby
WEB VIEW: http://tinyurl.com/ku7ga4
TODAY: http://alturl.com/whcf
3 DAYS: http://alturl.com/d9vz
1 WEEK: http://alturl.com/yeza
GOOGLE: http://groups.google.com/group/Wittrs
YAHOO: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/
FREELIST: //www.freelists.org/archive/wittrs/09-2009
Other related posts:
