Talk:Private language argument

Call for rewrite

Back in 2006 when the article was created, Wikipedia policies and guidelines were less developed than they are now and less observed as well. But in 2021, it's time to have another look at this article with a view to better respecting policies such as WP:verifiability and original research, and guidelines like the lead being a summary of the article, and use of secondary rather than primary sources.

So I'm calling for a major revision or rewrite of the article to bring it up to current standards. This could either be a WP:TNT operation (blow it up and start over), or a pretty major slash-and-burn keeping a good kernel based on summarization of secondary sources and expanding from there. Just to be clear, this is in the nature of a call for improvement and not a criticism; we are fortunate that the creator and major contributor (67% of the article) Banno is still active, and I'm thankful the article exists and I'd like to invite him to have first refusal on a rewrite if he is so inclined. I'll add a note at WT:PHILO as well so that other interested editors are aware and can join in if they wish.

One thought: I'd like to see some of the material at the SEP article used here, either to back existing content or to add new content. It's currently in the External links section, but it's not used in the footnotes and certainly could be. One thing I'm curious about, is that Candlish and Wrisley talk about some possible problems in English translation that may have muddied the waters ("it loses the crucial contrast, so evident in the original German...") and I'm not sure if other sources would agree and what they might have to say about that. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed Thiagovscoelho (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

"Memory scepticism" section

The part beginning "This interpretation (and the criticism of Wittgenstein that arises from it) is based on a complete misreading..." seems to be introducing and then trying to support the thesis that the criticism presented immediately above it does not apply to a correct interpretation of what Wittgenstein actually meant.

However, while I can understand the difference between the interpretation it is positing and the interpretation posited in the prior passage, it's unclear to me how the prior criticism would not apply equally to this new interpretation as to the old.

Specifically: If we accept the reading of Wittgenstein's claim as being about the incoherence of the very concept of reliability of memory in the absence of criteria of correctness, how is this reading immune from the criticism that it would apply to public language as much as to private language, in light of the thought experiment about Jim and Jenny and the tree? (In other words, in what sense could it be said that the idiosyncratic but public language of Jim and Jenny has a criterion of correctness beyond what a private language could be posited to have?)

I admit that the answer to my question might in fact be inferable from the text as it already stands, and that I am merely failing to see something that isn't missing in the text; but I would argue that, even if so, it could benefit from being clarified for the sake of the less astute reader (such as me!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.106.55 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I think you're completely correct about this: the criticism that the argument "proves too much" (i.e., would prove "public languages" equally incoherent) does apply equally well to the rest of the section, and its language probably needs to be changed to reflect that; I have edited it a bit to at least note that the "intelligibility interpretation" is not a death-blow to the criticism, but it really needs more extensive rewriting.

The real difference—the form of the argument that the criticism doesn't apply to—involves what the language is about; or, maybe, better said: what sort of definitions comprise the language. That is, if an explicit definition of S can, in principle, be given, then it doesn't "count" as (part of) a truly private language (even if only one person speaks, or has ever spoken, this S-containing language); only if S cannot be defined such that others can understand it does Wittgenstein's argument apply—in such a case, you cannot even check for yourself if you are (re-)using S "correctly"; cannot, as it were, "lay out" an example of [that sensation you decided to label S] & compare it to the current instance, even in principle.

But—as ever, with Wittgenstein—the whole situation, even in the academic literature, is sort of a mass of confusion, and it is hard to separate out which interpretations & arguments & criticisms are valid (given that this interpretation is correct); or which apply to which others; or which are taking some completely different approach that is entirely independent of this consideration; ... vel sim.

(But—disclaimer: I'm not necessarily the biggest Wittgenstein fan, and thus certainly not the biggest... er, best... Wittgenstein scholar—so take all the above with a grain of salt!)

Himaldrmann (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)