Private Language and the Community of One: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Private Language and the Community of One » Private Language and the Community of One

Private Language and the Community of One

Page: 1 2

Private Language and the Community of One

ade90212
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2005
Location: Ex-Exeter

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 361

Posted 11/29/07 - 04:50 AM: Subject: Private Language and the Community of One	#1
I recently came across the claim, in a paper called "Wittgenstein and the 'Sceptical Paradoxes'" by W. Tait, that the point of Wittgenstein's 'Private Language Argument' is that an act cannot be a linguistic act without the background of a language embedded in the practices of a community, which I agree with. However, Tait then goes on to claim that a linguistic community of one person could produce a meaningful language as "In the linguistic community of one, the one could make mistakes on occasion" (Tait, p. 485), which I do not agree with. It seems to me that the notion of a "community of one" is flawed, as the point of introducing the notion of community into considerations on rule-following and language-use is to introduce something external to the rule-follower or language-user in virtue of which an individual instance of the following of a rule or use of a word can be judged to be correct or incorrect. As soon as we lack external criteria with which an individual application of a rule can be judged to accord or fail to accord, whatever seems to be right to the rule-follower will be right and, to paraphrase Wittgenstein, this only means that here we cannot speak of right (and also, therefore, of wrong). I would suggest therefore, that contrary to Tait, in a linguistic community of one, one could not make mistakes as there would be no suitable criteria by which to judge an individual instance of language-use correct or incorrect, and therefore the idea of a "linguistic community of one" is incoherent. Edited by ade90212 on 11/29/07 - 05:06 AM
"Philosophers often behave like little children who scribble some marks on a piece of paper at random and then ask the grown-up "What's that?" - It happened like this: the grown-up had drawn pictures for the child several times and said: "this is a man", "this is a house", etc. And then the child makes some marks too and asks: what's this then?" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value

CypressMoon
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2007
Location: in between you and me

Total Topics: 93
Total Posts: 1427

Posted 11/29/07 - 07:41 AM:	#2
If I was a "community" of one, why would I need to have a language?
"IN THE spring, Tipasa is inhabited by gods and the gods speak in the sun and the scent of absinthe leaves, in the silver armor of the sea, in the raw blue sky, the flowercovered ruins, and the great bubbles of light among the heaps of stone." - Albert Camus, Lyrical and Critical Essays A good determinant of success is when people start buying your shit.

YadaYada
fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Location: in the past

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 316

Posted 11/29/07 - 08:00 AM:	#3
ade90212 wrote: the idea of a "linguistic community of one" is incoherent. I agree that your reasoning is correct within a Wittgensteinian framework. Tait is trying to extend that framework to a single person, but such extension escapes Wittgensteinian social objectivity of language.
{}{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{}{}{ . . . We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates ~ Aristotle

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 11/29/07 - 11:06 PM:	#4
Mmm.. how many levels of consiousness is there that makes up the individual? If you look at community as being a whole that is made up from the division of its' own self to create sub-sections, then it is indeed possible to have a community of one. The need to rut around being of the primal, low level brain area can communicate with the supposed higher-level brain functions. So we now know how to well.. insert dream here. Well, not really well said, but hopefully you get the general idea. (Specifically, the one concerning the topic.)
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

modularsky
Dilettante

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 28, 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 61

Posted 11/30/07 - 08:51 AM:	#5
Cadrache wrote: If you look at community as being a whole that is made up from the division of its' own self to create sub-sections, then it is indeed possible to have a community of one. But here you're just misusing the word 'community'. Under these premises (that certain parts of your brain can entertain different states and communicate with each other in much the same way individuals communicate with each other, therefore there can be a community of one) you may be justified in saying that a 'community of one' can exist. However Wittgenstein would say (and I would be inclined to agree): you are removing your grounds for justification which are necessary to determine whether anything is meaningful. If I were to say, "5+5=10" and then someone were to say: "Actually, you MEANT to say 12, because under your rules, 5+5=12", I could not justify my saying 5 and 5 are 10 by saying, "no, I know 5+5=10 because I consulted with my subconscious brain, which I know to be a separate entity than my conscious brain, etc." This is to say: your ideas of what divisions exist within your brain are still subject to objections against private language, and while observations concerning someone else's brain may be possible, it is only possible because you are in the public domain of discourse, and justification there lies with other people. I may be writing incoherently, but Kripke's "On Rules and Private Language", chapter 38 has a good discussion on Wittgenstein's arguments concerning rule following and private language (though I disagree with Kripke's use of Humean skepticism to describe Wittgenstein's solution to the private language and private rules skepticism). Hope this helps.
"Es ist der geist, der sich den KÃ¶rper baut!" -Schiller

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 12/03/07 - 11:50 PM:	#6
Yes and No, Molarsky. I'll agree with you a bit; It is not a great way to make the division. Well, anyways, since I haven't read indepth of what wittgenstein wrote yet, (a couple of chapters in the tractalus) does not Wittgenstein take the somewhat Socrates approach? To know how much you understand, keep asking questions about the object itself. What is outside the object doesn't matter. In this way you come to facts. These 'facts' may relate to those pure definitions of the object. The essence or form of the object, to give you a Truth. Like that whole 'what is Beauty?' question. So, I guess I may have jumped a few pieces. Shall we define community? The 'fact', or essence of community would be what? Now, on a purely Wittengstein approach, your example sort of fails. So, let us start by taking the whole of the objects. '10', and '12'. Wittengstein, in tractalus denotes that what is outside the object does not give you the facts of the object. Only what is inside the object will tell you what the object it. He also goes on to state (section 3 I think) that things that have the same fact, can be found within objects, and can have the exact same values. The only difference being, is that there is multiple of said fact. In other words, if we did not accept that this 5 here is not that 5 there, then relationships of any form of the same value cannot take place, even if they are mathematically incorrect. So, the facts remain, within 12, 5+5 equals 12. Within 10, the facts remain that 5+5 equals 10. Because 12 does not exist within 10, and 10 does not exist within 12, the tautology of questioning whether or not the facts are 'right' doesn't matter, due to the fact that what another thing is, does not determine what the thing you are looking at is. http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/tka...ittgenstein/tractatus.html 2.0233 If two objects have the same logical form, the only distinction between them, apart from their external properties, is that they are different 2.014 Objects contain the possibility of all situations. 2.01231 If I am to know an object, though I need not know its external properties, I must know all its internal properties. 2.01 A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects (things). Oh, and you were not writing incoherently, I more or less agree with you. The difference for our answers would likely be what we consider to be the object. Excluding me being insane of course. :P YAY for Wittengstein! He proves that i'm not insane!!!! 3.03 Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically. Well maybe... PS... I coincidently just started reading Wittengstein yesterday. I wouldn't be surprised if my counter-argument could be easily brushed aside.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

ade90212
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2005
Location: Ex-Exeter

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 361

Posted 12/04/07 - 02:20 AM:	#7
Cadrache wrote: Now, on a purely Wittengstein approach, your example sort of fails. I think you are on the wrong track here. You are talking about the early Wittgenstein, the author of the Tractatus, while we are talking about the later Wittgenstein, author of the Philosophical Investigations. Wittgenstein himself dismisses most of the Tractatus as metaphysical nonsense in the Philosophical Investigations, and particularly the idea that every word (in our example, community) must have an essence. The later Wittgenstein implored us to "look and see" at the way we use words, rather than just define them in the ways that we wish to. In this case, it seems implausible that you have ever used the term community to apply to one person, except in your above post. I would suggest that ordinarily even two, three, four or five people would be called a community.
"Philosophers often behave like little children who scribble some marks on a piece of paper at random and then ask the grown-up "What's that?" - It happened like this: the grown-up had drawn pictures for the child several times and said: "this is a man", "this is a house", etc. And then the child makes some marks too and asks: what's this then?" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 12/04/07 - 04:08 AM:	#8
Warning: Long Post. Nah, I have used it(community) to define myself a few times. You don't realize how much it jars your senses as a whole individual when you realize that one part of consiousness doesn't know the answer the rest of you does, and so you answer it when it asks. And no, it's not the 'talk to yourself syndrome'. (The wtf effect comes when I all know what the answer is) Ever read descriptions of people who are dead and they don't know it? I've heard one rumor of a guy going about his life for at least an entire day before he realized he actually died, and then promptly stopped functioning... Yes, that ones' a bit far, but how about the ones that attempt to stuff guts back into their stomachs? And yes, unfortunately the morbid examples are easier to give for sampling. It is usually what I don't say that people disagree with. And when I do say it.. well I have watched a few eyes dilate. I was also attempting to use your example to bridge somewhat how I look at the problem. If you want to take an 'early Witgenstein answer' to the original question, then Wittgenstein would likely state that there is no community of one, simply from those point quotes from the tractalus. (the ones not concerning sanity) Since community and individuality would have two separate external forms, then they are different. It gets rather complicated at the point when you consider whether or not an individual communicates to himself from positions of independant entities. (automatic breathing vs. telling yourself to breathe) Well, to shorten things, you end up in a loop that on the first round claims False, or no they are not the same. But because they are not the same, it loops back and gives you a True. It seems to prove the possibility of the opposite. Under that section, it 'looks' like it falls under the illogical thinking. Where I think "Older Wittgenstein might have erred, is in the insanity clause. He used it as a back door. Since his process logically landed in one of them fallacy conundrums, he took the easy out. He said it wasn't right. He didn't take his own teaching. Since all thinking is suppose to be logical, then the existence of going back to the beginning with the opposite answer is not at all wrong. It may simply reverse a number of 'nots', and allows you to continue on; even though you tread the same path which isn't the same path. Just the second 5, that is different from the first 5. The single definition that is required in order for 5 + 5 to equal 10, and 5 + 5 5 to equal 12. While you do 'loop back' to the same number, it is a different number of the same value. While I agree that age brings wisdom, intelligence and the like, I disagree that it is factually 'always better'. As the road not taken, one cannot always see, or even attempt to understand said other viewpoint for lack of experience in the other reality(s). I'll agree that likely what you state is factually true for Wittgenstein. I am however not said person, and tread my own paths occasionally. The thing Ade90212 is how one defines essence. Is it an object, or is it form and function? Maybe it is both? Claiming community through functions, allows you to easily transfer the physical sub-objects - such as man- to be outside the definition of community. One could also counter with claims that if you switch man with dog, or field, or bee-hive, or wolf, and the like, that they do not have 'community' because the functions that define their community are not resident within the functions (the ones that mean 'community') already derived from the 'man-community'. Well, to help bridge the gap more, I'll tell you how I come to some of my ideas. The basis of understanding is usually derived from a singular standpoint; Air, or Stone. Fluid motion, or static structures. To me, this is by far not enough. While perception is maintained on the static structures, you do not observe the fluid motions. Now this is good, in how you can look at a purer form of some constructs, if you can observe said constructs. Not 3rd party deviations. I'll also note, that you can indeed learn some of what an object is by simple outside observance. I however agree that you do not know its' true form, by solely outside observance. When you add a second static object, and apply 'looking' to it, you can arrive at formations of fluid motion; or is it? To be precise, it is limited fluid motion; limited by how it can interact with said solid objects. In the man-community, you will only see the fluid motions that can interact between the solid objects of man (individuality possibly shows) In the wolf-community, you will only see the fluid motions that interact with wolf. Well, at the point where we get enough of these 'community-types'; us humans quite often compare them against each other. Probably still good. We'll see many 'family-ties' in most animal-type communities. And so we plug in 'community has an inner value of family-ties'. All well and good. Eventually we narrow anomolies, and that is possibly wrong. You see, at this point, we have forgotten about the fluid motion perception. We only looked how fluids interacted with the solid, static type. We'll leave that there for now. We head to the fluid motion perception. That which looks at reactions, causalities and the like. Energy patterns, if you will. Essentially everything I said previously. We get fluid motions interacting with each other, they form their own specific 'patterns', or lack there-of. Simplified, since it looks almost the same as the first one. So, for a while, we get these fronts of confrontation. Some with pitchforks, others with what used to be less-mundane things, like paper. Eventually somebody comes along, and analizes both the fluid, and the static examples! Oh, we got somewheres! If we throw these 2 'points of community away from the static definitions, they fit fairly well with the fluid archtype. Oh my god! We don't have to argue anymore! So, I do ask, who is simply making their own defination? You see, they yet lack another 2, or 3 relationships for a true, Socratarian Truth, the wittgenstein 'fact'. Remember how 'waves' collide? Some add to each other, making it bigger. Others reduce or even negate entirely. The two are definately missing are the results of what happens when fluid functions hit static-archtypes and what happens when the static functions hit the fluid-archtypes. It could be, that a number of the anomalies are key values to the fact that defines community, the 'Truth'. Unfortunately they are probably not. You see, you now have 5 sets of data to analyze against each other! At this point, you could probably then answer the question, what is community? What functions exist in all sets? Of course the ones that negate each other could be a problem. Are they are null truth value, or a 0 value? Um.. well, most of the mid-range area is quite often done without language, just a browsing of a connections between the stuff i'm pondering, and is the part where i won't be able to help you percieve how I think. I'll possibly write some bits tommorrow, in truth-table form tommorrow, after work, if you want to of course.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

YadaYada
fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Location: in the past

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 316

Posted 12/04/07 - 08:23 AM:	#9
ade90212 wrote: Wittgenstein himself dismisses most of the Tractatus as metaphysical nonsense in the Philosophical Investigations, and particularly the idea that every word (in our example, community) must have an essence. So the Tractatus takes the notion of an abstract formal language from Frege and relates it to an abstract formal Aristotelian notion of reality through logic.
{}{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{}{}{ . . . We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates ~ Aristotle

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 12/05/07 - 02:28 AM:	#10
Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (April 26, 1889 – April 29, 1951) At work, I noticed we were discussing a moot point concerning early or later wittgenstein. Wittgenstein is dead and is incapable of speaking. All to add today it seems.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.