Jump to content
Science Forums

Private Language


Recommended Posts

Ludwig Wittgenstein's "Private Language" concept from Philosophical Investigations has always fascinated me incredibly. Basically, it relates to a type of inner language that only the user understands. It is a language outside the scope of words, although has absolute understanding to the user. I take it to mean, possibly, emotions that hit an individual that they some how know, though are not relatable to anyone else.

 

I would love to hear what other people in the community know or can add to this amazing concept.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

The real question is do spambots think?  Can they recognize the impact they are having on a community?

 

Doesn't this imply self awareness? I don't believe there is currently any Artificial Intelligence that is self aware. I think, therefore I am and all that jazz. Back to the original question, do you think in a way that only you would understand? For example, not using words found in your spoken language?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't this imply self awareness? I don't believe there is currently any Artificial Intelligence that is self aware. I think, therefore I am and all that jazz. Back to the original question, do you think in a way that only you would understand? For example, not using words found in your spoken language?

 

Maybe this doesn't mean anything.. Its just useless Fluff.

Just a few buzzwords and nothing else..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to quote my own self, and/or post whore on this thread with multiple consecutive posts...

 

 

Ludwig was quite a young stud in his day.. Definitely respect a young master with a great mind of his own.,

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

 

 

If only I could travel back in time and take a hard lesson..

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what I always reply when people ask me in what language I actually think (because I speak 5), for me it is like "you know what  you wanna say before you actually find the words for it."

 

Great comparison! When you speak more than one language, it seems that the thoughts just form on their own and find the words after. I wonder if it is the same for people who only speak one language? Maybe a stupid question...but it must be the same...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes the last thing I need to do is actually open my mouth and speak something to someone. I tend to size things up pretty quick similar to what Elisa mentioned. You don't always need words, or even a randon glance. Sometimes you just know because you know and I have no idea how to describe that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ludwig Wittgenstein's "Private Language" concept from Philosophical Investigations has always fascinated me incredibly. Basically, it relates to a type of inner language that only the user understands. It is a language outside the scope of words, although has absolute understanding to the user. I take it to mean, possibly, emotions that hit an individual that they some how know, though are not relatable to anyone else.

 

I would love to hear what other people in the community know or can add to this amazing concept.

Hello, if you read further in his "Philosophic Investigations", where he introduces the concept of private language, he then makes the argument that it is impossible for anyone to have a private language. Thus, it is impossible for any human to have an inner language that only the user can understand.

 

He was making this point because it is a commonly held thought that such an inner langauge is possible. A common example is...suppose an experiment (I know it is not moral, but let us not go there, it is a thought experiment) where a new born human is placed on an island and kept alive without any direct language contact with other humans. The point Wittgenstein was making is that such a person as an adult would not have an inner private language, they would not have any word language at all. His claim was that language derives only from contact with other humans and that a concept of private language does not exist. So, any inner emotion that any human has can be understood by others, if they have had a similar experience, even if such inner emotion cannot be communicated to others via spoken or written words.

 

I concur with Wittgenstein because if you or I or anyone in a normal mental state drives to an overlook and views a majestic vista, say Grand Canyon in USA, we all experience an inner emotion outside the scope of words that we all understand, that is, we all know what each other knows concerning the phenomenon of the experience without the use of words or a private language.

Edited by Rade
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rade, don't know if I agree with Wittgenstein. A similar experiment has been done, although it was not for an experiment, rather the consequence of a very psychopatic father. I do not remember the girls name, but it was so big in the US media attention that she had to be hidden. The whole stroy goes as: she ws always closed in a room and the way the father interacted with her was only via growlings and and barkings. When after many years she eventually got out, she managed to learn some basic speach. Although, when the attention got too big she fell back and it is hard to know whether now she manages to speak, since she is hidden. The point is though that she manged to learn a language.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

I have never read, Wittgenstein. Maybe you are leaving something out, but I have a few questions......

 

he then makes the argument that it is impossible for anyone to have a private language.

How can this possibly be determined?

 

So, any inner emotion that any human has can be understood by others, if they have had a similar experience, even if such inner emotion cannot be communicated to others via spoken or written words.

What experiment can show this?

I understand that philosophy is not science, and need not follow the "method," but there needs to be some logical reasoning to Corroborate a theoretical claim.

 

I concur with Wittgenstein because if you or I or anyone in a normal mental

What about the abnormal?

 

Many people who were blind since birth, and sometime later gained sight through medical science, report that they can not see one point perspective. They say that the railroad tracks do not appear to come to a point in the distance.

 

How about, Hellen Keller? She must have had an internal language in order to relate to the teaching she was getting.

 

If you could look into, Hellen Keller's, Pre-educated mind, are you sure you could have understood what you found there?

Her reality would have been vastly different from yours.

Are you, (and or, Wittgenstein,) suggesting that she simply did not think at all? Because if she did, she would have been doing it from a perspective that you have never experienced. How could she not have had an inner language of some sort?

And, how could you possibly relate to it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...