A new interpretation of the private language argument

A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE PRIVATE LANGUAGE ARGUMENT AYODELE-OJA OLALEKAN RAFIU B.A. (Hons.), O.A.U., M.A. UNILAG A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2007 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all I thank my supervisor, Dr. Michael Pelczar, without whose support this thesis would have been very different from its present shape. I appreciate your critical and encouraging suggestions throughout the course of writing this thesis. I am equally grateful to you for reading through the many drafts of the arguments in this thesis. I also thank the duo of Drs. John Holbo and Mark D’Cruz – who together with my supervisor, make up my thesis committee – for their support and confidence in my ability to pull this project off. To the faculty, especially, Profs Ten Chin Liew, Alan Chan; Assoc. Profs Saranindranath Tagore, Tan Sor Hoon (HOD), Cecilia Lim and Anh Tuan Nuyen; and staff, of the Department of philosophy I am grateful for the scholarly and moral stimuli they have provided for my self-development. I thank the Department of Philosophy and National University of Singapore (NUS) for the financial support I enjoyed throughout the length of my study without which I could not have accomplished this task; for the overseas conference grants; and in general, for nurturing an efficient system, which has made learning and research not only fruitful, but also exciting. I have benefited in various ways from colleagues in the Department. I am grateful to Jonathan for his insightful questions during the seminar I presented to the Department. To Lishan for the stimulating discussions we had, and to Kim and Edward for their concern for me and my family, I say thanks. To Jason, Bendick, Kevin, and Pei-En my appreciation for all the wonderful time we spent together; and for all the challenging i questions that kept me cognitively intimate with the subject of my research. Above all, I am grateful to everyone for the hearty laughs and the cheerful moments we had together. It is tough enough to be an international student; but a family of international students, as a friend and colleague once put it, is an “impossible family”! But fortunately, we – wife, daughters and I – have been able to pull through the last four years or so together. I have NUS to thank for standing as guarantors for my wife for immigration purposes, and some of my friends and colleagues, Jude, Weng Hong and Leon, for sponsoring my daughters at different times. Your kind gestures have ensured that they have relevant approvals to pursue their own studies. I am happy to report that they are all doing quite well. I have also enjoyed good relationships with many people outside the department, in and outside the university. To my neighbours at West Coast Green RC, for their warmth and hospitality; to the teaching staff of Philosophy department at Raffles Institution where I had a relief teaching stint, for their care and concern; to my compatriots, especially, Adekunle, Adodo, Raphael, Wilson and Moshood (C/E), for their support, the fun and worries shared; and to everyone who has ever asked me: ‘How is your thesis getting on?’ I give my gratitude. Of course, Adepeju, my dear wife, deserves a special mention for being my pillar of support and for persevering with me in the course of this research. I will always love you. I thank my lovely daughters, Temidayo and Olasubomi, for your patience and understanding; and for joining in on the countdown to the eventful completion of what you both cheerfully consider the longest “homework” ever to be undertaken by any student. ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements i Table of Contents iii Summary v Abbreviations of Works by Wittgenstein vii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER TWO: THE NATURE OF A PRIVATE LANGUAGE I. A language whose words only its speaker can possibly understand II. A language whose words refer to the inner experiences of its speaker 13 III. A language only its speaker can possibly know to exist 30 CHAPTER THREE: THE EXEGESIS OF ‘PRIVATE LANGUAGE’ 36 I.1. Alternative readings of PI §§ 243-245 36 I.2. Alternative readings of PI §§ 256ff 54 CHAPTER FOUR: THE PRIVATE LANGUAGE ARGUMENT 61 I. The impossibility of using a language in private 67 II. Alternative interpretations of the PLA 81 iii CHAPTER FIVE: ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A PRIVATE LANGUAGE 104 I. An argument for the physical character of phenomenal consciousness (APCP) 105 II. Evidence of Wittgenstein’s awareness of and interest in the mind/body debate 121 III. Justification for attributing the APCP to Wittgenstein 127 IV. Some alternative interpretations of the importance of the impossibility of a private language 132 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION 139 BIBLIOGRAPHY 144 iv SUMMARY I will examine Wittgenstein’s argument for the impossibility of a private language. The question, according to Wittgenstein, is this: is it logically possible for someone to use a language to refer to his inner experiences that only he can understand? There are three aspects of this question. The first is what the nature of a private language might be if it were possible. The second is how the nature of a private language bears on its logical possibility. The third is what implication the impossibility of a private language might have for other areas of philosophy. The first question is about the problem of logical incomprehensibility as it arises for both the putative private linguist and the putative hearer in a private language scenario. That is, what facts about a supposed private language logically constrain its comprehensibility to a would-be hearer, and its teachability by the would-be speaker? My answer to this question is that a private language is a language only its speaker can know to exist. The question of the impossibility of a private language, as I see it, is about the task of a putative private linguist, namely: what task is logically impossible for a private linguist to perform? There are two relevant interpretations of this question. The first is whether someone can use a language in private. The second is whether someone can invent (in the thesis, I use the word ‘invent’, interchangeably with ‘set up‘) a supposedly private language. Wittgenstein is usually interpreted to favour the second; the alternative language interpretation. But this thesis defends the first interpretation, which is about the v mode of use. That is, this thesis argues that it is logically impossible to use a language in private (i.e., use a private language). Lastly, how might the impossibility of a private language impact other areas of philosophy? This thesis contends that the impossibility of a private language throws light on the mind/body debate. It implies that a certain dualist thesis – dualism about sensation – is false. vi ABBREVIATIONS OF WORKS BY WITTGENSTEIN BT The Big Typescript, TS. 213 (2005) PI Philosophical Investigations (1953/2001), Reprinted in 2003. PO Philosophical occasions, 1912-1951 (1993) RPP Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology (1980) OC On Certainty (1979) PR Philosophical Remarks (1975) PG Philosophical Grammar (1974) LPE ‘Notes for Lectures on “Private Experience” and “Sense Data”.’ (1968) Z Zettel (1967) BB The Blue and the Brown Books (1958) References to works by Wittgenstein are given in the text by citing the initial letters of the titles followed by section or page numbers. Other works are referenced in the foot notes. vii Chapter One: Introduction At §243 of the Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein raises for discussion the question whether it is possible for there to be a language whose individual words refer to the sensations of its speaker, such that no one else but the speaker can understand it. His response to the question is that such a language is not possible. In the subsequent sections, Wittgenstein offers his argument for that claim. This is what philosophers refer to as the Private Language Argument (PLA). Presumably Wittgenstein does not ask whether a private language is possible just for the sake of answering that it is not. The question therefore arises what the overall goal of the PLA is supposed to be. Here opinions diverge. But that is not unexpected given that there is considerable disagreement even over what is meant by “private language”. This thesis is going to give an interpretation of a private language in order to argue, in agreement with Wittgenstein, that a private language (properly construed) is not possible. So much has been churned out in this respect in the literature that looking at it again, it appears, may be far from a much worthwhile venture. However, I am persuaded that the PLA is more consequential than the current literature suggests. My motivation is that there is a plausible connection between the PLA and a traditional debate in the philosophy of mind. This thesis argues that the private language argument is part of a larger effort to show that conscious experience is broadly physical in character. I argue that Wittgenstein’s arguments in sections 234-317 of the Philosophical Investigations support some form of materialism or physicalism. Thus, reflecting on the PLA seems to me to provide an insight into the mind/body problem. The purpose of this thesis is to spell out this connection; i.e., lay out the PLA and the overall implications of the argument for the mind-body problem. The structure of this thesis is as follows. Chapter Two addresses the first task of this thesis, which is to understand the nature of a private language. The question posed here is what a private language might look like if it were possible. It seems that interpreting the private language argument, namely, explaining why and how a private language is logically impossible, depends on whether and how we understand the nature of such a language. In other words, this chapter answers the prior question of the nature of a private language. The answer to this question builds on what Wittgenstein says about the language: a private language is a language only its speaker can understand, whose words describe the inner experiences of the speaker. This chapter argues that any language that satisfies these conditions is a language only its speaker can know to exist. That is, a language that a speaker uses to describe his inner experiences, but which someone else besides the speaker cannot understand, is a language that someone else besides the speaker cannot know to exist. This seems to follow from the idea that possession of a private language is inconsistent with the conjunction of the following two possibilities: the possibility that someone distinct from me can have the evidence that I use a private language, and the possibility that I can have a public language. If someone besides me can know that I use a private language, and I can have a public language, then it seems there is nothing stopping me from explaining the meaning of my supposedly private word to someone besides me, by using the public language that I can have to describe correlations between BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, Felicia. “Does Philosophy Only State What Everyone Admits? A Discussion of the Method of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy XVII (1992): 246-254. Addis, Mark. Wittgenstein: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: New York: Continuum, 2006. Alter, Torin. “Mary’s New Perspective.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73 (1995): 585-84. Armstrong, David M. A Materialist Theory of the Mind. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968/1993. ——————. “What is Consciousness?” In The Nature of Consciousness: Philosophical Debates, edited by Ned Block, Owen Flanagan, and Gven Gzeldere, 721-728. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997. Armstrong, David M., and Norman Malcolm. Consciousness and Causality: Debate on the Nature of Mind. Oxford: Blackwell, 1984. Aune, Bruce. “The Problem of Other Minds.” Philosophical Review 70, no. (1961): 320-39. Bachrach, Jay. E. “Qualia and Theory Reduction: A Criticism of Paul Churchland”. Iyyun (1990): 281-94. Bain, David. “Private Languages and Private Theorists.” The Philosophical Quarterly 54, no. 216 (2004): 427-434. Baker, Gordon P., and P. M. S. Hacker. Wittgenstein: Rules, Grammar and Necessity, (An Analytical Commentary on the Philosophical Investigations; vol. 2) Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985. ——————. Wittgenstein: Understanding and Meaning (An Analytical Commentary on the Philosophical Investigations; vol. 1. 2nd edition, extensively revised by P.M.S. Hacker). Oxford, UK; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Bar-On, Dorit. “On the Possibility of a Solitary Language.” Noûs 26, (1992): 27-45. Beakley, Brian, and Peter Ludlow, eds. The Philosophy of Mind: Classical Problems/Contemporary Issues, 2nd edition. London; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006. 144 Birnbacher, Dieter. “Epiphenomenalism as a Solution to the Ontological Mind-Body Problem.” Ratio (1988): 17-32. Blackburn, Simon. “The Individual Strikes Back.” Synthese 58, no. (1984): 281-301. ——————. “Rule-Following and Moral Realism.” In Wittgenstein: to Follow a Rule, edited by Steven Holtzman and Christopher Leich, 163-87. London; New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981. ——————. Essays in Quasi-Realism. N.Y.: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Block, Ned, O. Flanagan, and G. Guzeldere, eds. The Nature of Consciousness: Philosophical Debates. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997. Block, Ned. “Troubles with Functionalism (revised).” In The Philosophy of Mind: Classical Problems/Contemporary Issues, 107-131, 2nd edition. London: Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006. Brown, Harold Chapman, “Mind—An Event in Physical Nature,” The Philosophical Review, 42, no. (1933): 130-155. Campbell, Neil. “Physicalism, Qualia Inversion, and Affective States.” Synthese 124, no. (2000): 239-56. Candlish, Stewart. "Private Language", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta, ed. URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2004/entries/private-language/ 2/10/2004 Canfield, John V. “Private Language: the Diary Case”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (2001): 377-94. ——————. “The Community View”. The Philosophical Review 105 (1996): 469-88. ——————. ed. The Philosophy of Wittgenstein: The Private Language Argument, vol. 9. N. Y.: Garland, 1986. Carney, James D. “Private Language: The Logic of Wittgenstein’s Argument”. Mind 69 (1960): 560-565. Carruthers, Peter. Phenomenal Consciousness: A Naturalistic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Castaneda, Hector-Neri. “Criteria, Analogy, and Knowledge of Other Minds”. Journal of Philosophy 59 no. 20 (1962): 533-46. 145 Chalmers, David J. “The Content and Epistemology of Phenomenal Belief.” In Consciousness: New Philosophical Perspectives, edited by Smith Quentin, 220272. Oxford: Clarendon-Press, 2003. ——————. “Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?” In Conceivability and Possibility, edited by Tamar Szabo Gendler, 145-200. Oxford: Clarendon-Press, 2002. —————., ed. Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. ——————. ‘Précis of “The Conscious Mind.”’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59, no.2 (1999): 435-438. ——————. “Materialism and the Metaphysics of Modality.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59, no. (1999): 473-496. ——————. “Moving Forward on the Problem of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 4, no. (1997): 3-46. ——————. The Conscious Mind: in Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996. ——————. “Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia.” In Conscious Experience, edited by Thomas Metzinger. Ferdinand-Schoningh: Paderborn, 1995. Churchland, Paul M. “Reduction, Qualia and the Direct Introspection of Brain States.” Journal of Philosophy 82 (1995):8-28. ——————. On the Contrary: Critical Essays, 1987-199/P. M. Churchland, and Patricia S. Churchland. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989. Cohen, Jonathan. “Color, Content, and Fred: On a Proposed Reductio of the Inverted Spectrum Hypothesis.” Philosophical Studies 103, no. (2001): 121-44. Cole, David. “Functionalism and Inverted Spectra.” Synthese 82, no. (1990): 207-22. Conee, Earl. “Phenomenal Knowledge.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy (1994). Crane, Tim. Elements of mind: an Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Davidson, Donald. “The Second Person.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy XVII (1992): 255-267. Dempsey, Liam. ‘Chalmers’ Fading and Dancing Qualia: Consciousness and the “Hard Problem”’ Southwest Philosophy Review 18, no. (2002): 65-80. 146 Dennett, Daniel C. “"Epiphenomenal" Qualia?” In Consciousness Explained, 398-406. Little-Brown and Company, 1991. ——————. “The Unimagined Preposterousness of Zombies.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2, no.4 (1995): 322-26. Descartes, Rene. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. II. Translated by J. Cottingham et. al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1641/1984. Diamond, Cora: “Does Bismark have a Beetle in his Box?” In The New Wittgenstein, edited by Alice Crary and Rupert Read, 262-292. London; New York: Routledge 2000. Eckert, Maureen, ed. The Theories of Mind: An Introductory Reader. N. Y.: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006. Ellis, Ralph D., and N. Newton. “Three paradoxes of Phenomenal Consciousness: Bridging the Explanatory Gap.” Journal of Consciousness Studies (1998): 41942. Feigl, Herbert. “The ‘Mental’ and the ‘Physical’.” In The Philosophy of Mind: Classical Problems/Contemporary Issues, 229-242, 2nd edition. London: Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006. Feigl, Herbert, V. C. Aldrich. “Spatial Location and Psycho-Physical Problem.” Philosophy of Science, 2, no.2 (1935): 256-261. Feigl, Herbert. “Logical Analysis of the Psychophysical Problem: A Contribution of the New Positivism.” Philosophy of Science, 1, no. (1934): 420-445. Flanagan, Owen J. Consciousness Reconsidered. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992. —————. Consciousness: in the Science of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991. Flanagan, Owen, and T. Polger. “Zombies and the Function of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies (1995): 313-21. Furash, Gary. “Frank Jackson's Knowledge Argument against Materialism.” Dialogue 32 (1989): 1-6. Gennaro, Rocco J. Mind and Brain: A Dialogue on the Mind-Body Problem. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1996. 147 Georgalis, Nicholas. The Primacy of the Subjective: Foundations for a Unified Theory of Mind and Language, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006. ——————. “Awareness, Understanding, and Functionalism.” Erkenntnis 44 (1996): 225-56. Gertler, Brie. “A Defense of the Knowledge Argument.” Philosophical Studies 93 (1999): 317-336. Graham, George., and T. Horgan. “Mary Mary, quite Contrary.” Philosophical Studies 99 (2000): 59-87. Graham, George. Philosophy of Mind: An Introduction. Massachusetts; Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2nd edition, 1998. Grandy, Richard E. “The Private Language Argument.” Mind 85, no. 338 (1976): 246250. Greenberg, William M. “On Chalmers' Principle of Organizational Invariance and his Dancing Qualia' and Fading Qualia' Thought Experiments”. Journal of Consciousness Studies. 5, no. (1998): 53-58. Grice, Paul H. “Meaning.” In Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language: a Concise Anthology, edited by Robert J. Stainton, 127-136. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2000. Gustafson, Don. “Pain, Qualia, and the Explanatory Gap”. Philosophical Psychology 11 (1998): 371-387. Hacker, P. M. S. Wittgenstein: Connections and Controversies, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001. ——————. Wittgenstein: Meaning and Mind (An Analytical Commentary on the Philosophical Investigations; vol. 3) Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990. ——————. Wittgenstein: Mind and Will, (An Analytical Commentary on the Philosophical Investigations; vol. 4) Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 1996. —————. Wittgenstein's Place in Twentieth-Century Analytic Philosophy, Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1996. Hanfling, Oswald. Wittgenstein and the Human Form of Life. London: Routledge, 2002. ——————. “What does the Private language Argument Prove?” Philosophical Quarterly 34 (1984): 468-481. 148 Hardcastle, Valerie. G. “The why of Consciousness: A non-issue for Materialists.” Journal of Consciousness Studies (1996): 7-13. Hardin, Clide L. “Qualia and Materialism: Closing the Explanatory Gap”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 48 (1987): 281-98. Harnad, S. “Why and how we are not Zombies.” Journal of Consciousness Studies (1994): 164-67. Hilbert, David R and Mark Eli Kalderon. “Color and the Inverted Spectrum.” In Color Perception: Philosophical, Psychological, Artistic, and Computational Perspectives, edited by Steven Davis, 187-214. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Hill, Christopher S. “Chalmers on the Apriority of Modal Knowledge.” Analysis 58 (1998): 20-26. ——————. “Imaginability, Conceivability, Possibility, and the Mind-Body Problem.” Philosophical Studies 87, no. (1997): 61-85. Hintikka, Jaakko. On Wittgenstein. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2000. ——————. Ludwig Wittgenstein: Half Truths and One-and-a-Half-Truths. Dordrecht; Boston; London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996. ——————. “Wittgenstein on Private Language: Some Sources of Misunderstanding.” Mind 78 (1969): 423-425. Hintikka, M. B., and J. Hintikka. Investigating Wittgenstein. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. Hutto, Daniel. “Consciousness Demystified: A Wittgensteinian Critique of Dennett.” Monist 78 (1995): 464-79. Jackson, Frank. “Postscript on Qualia.” In Mind, Method, and Conditionals: Selected Essays. London: Routledge, 1998. 76-79. ——————. “Appendix A (for philosophers).” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 (1993): 897-901. ——————. “What Mary Didn't Know.” Journal of Philosophy 83 (1986): 291-5. ——————. “Epiphenomenal Qualia.” Philosophical Quarterly 32, no. 127 (1982): 127- 36. 149 Jacquette, Dale. “Wittgenstein's Manometer and the Private Language Argument.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 15, no.1 (1998): 99-126. Jakab, Zoltán. “Ineffability of Qualia: A Straightforward Naturalistic Explanation.” Consciousness and Cognition (2000): 329-351. Johnsen, Bredo. “Dennett on Qualia and Consciousness: A Critique.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 27 (1997): 47-82. ——————. “The Intelligibility of Spectrum Inversion.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 23 (1993): 631-6. —————. “The Inverted Spectrum.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64 (1986): 471-6. Johnson, Charles W. “Parables.” In Time and History: Papers of the 28th International Wittgenstein Symposium Vol. XIII, edited by Friedrich Stadler, and Michael Stoltzner, 124-6. Kirchberg/Wechsel: Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society, 2005. Kannetzky, Frank. “The Principle of Expressibility and Private Language.” ActaPhilosophica-Fennica. 69 (2001): 191-212. Kenny, Anthony. Wittgenstein. rev., ed. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 1973/2006. Kim, Jaegwon. Physicalism or Something Near Enough. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005. Kind, Amy. “Qualia Realism.” Philosophical Studies 104 (2001):143-62. Kirk, Robert. Zombies and Consciousness. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. —————. “Why shouldn't we be able to solve the Mind-Body Problem?” Analysis 51 (1991): 17-23. ——————. “Reply to Don Locke on Zombies and Materialism.” Mind 86 (1977): 262- 4. ——————. “Zombies vs. Materialists.” Aristotelian Society Supplement 48 (1974): 135-52. Klagge, James C. Wittgenstein: Biography and Philosophy. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 150 Kripke, Saul A.: Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language: An Elementary Exposition, 7th printing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982. (1994) Lahav, Ran. “A New Challenge for the Physicalist: Phenomenal Indistinguishability.” Philosophia 24 (1994): 77-103. Leeds, Stephen. “Qualia, Awareness, Sellars.” Noûs 27 (1993): 303-330. Levine, Joseph. “On leaving out what it's like” In Consciousness: Psychological and Philosophical Essays, edited by M. Davies and G. Humphreys. Oxford; Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1993. ——————. “Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 64 (1983): 354-61. —————. “What Experience Teaches.” In Mind and Cognition, edited by W. Lycan. Blackwell, 1990. —————. ‘Postscript to "Mad pain and Martian pain".’ In Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, 1983. Locke, Don. “Zombies, Schizophrenics, and purely Physical Objects.” Mind 83 (1976): 97-99. Lockwood, Michael. “What was Russell's Neutral Monism?” Midwest Studies in Philosophy (1981): 143-58. Ludlow, Peter, Yujin Nagasawa, and Daniel Stoljar, eds. There’s something about Mary: essays on Phenomenal Consciousness and Frank Jackson’s Knowledge Argument. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004. Lycan, William. G. ‘What is the "Subjectivity" of the Mental?’ Philosophical Perspectives (1990). Malcolm, Norman. “Subjectivity” Philosophy 63 (1988): 147-60. ——————. Nothing is Hidden. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986. ——————. Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. ——————. “Knowledge of Other Minds.” Journal of Philosophy 55, no.23 (1958): 969-78. Marton, Peter. “Zombies vs. Materialists: The Battle over Conceivability.” Southwest Philosophy Review 14 (1998): 131-38. 151 McCauley, R. N. “Why the Blind Can't Lead the Blind: Dennett on the Blind Spot, Blind sight, and Sensory Qualia.” Consciousness and Cognition (1993): 155-64. McClamrock, Ron. “Irreducibility and Subjectivity.” Philosophical Studies 67: 177-92. McCulloch, Gregory. “What it is like.” Philosophical Quarterly 38 (1988): 1-19. McDowell, John. Mind, Value, & Reality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1998. ——————. “Non-Cognitivism and Rule-Following.” In Wittgenstein: to Follow a Rule, edited by Steven Holtzman, and Christopher Leich, 141-62. London; New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981. McGilvary, Evander Bradley, “The Revolt against Dualism,” The Philosophical Review, 40, no.3 (1931): 246-265. McGinn, Colin. “Consciousness Evaded: Comments on Dennett.” Philosophical Perspectives (1995): 241-49. —————. “Can we solve the Mind-Body Problem?’ Mind 98 (1989): 349-66. ——————. Wittgenstein on Meaning: An Interpretation and Evaluation. Oxford: Blackwell, 1984. McGuinness, Brian, and G. H. von Wright, eds. Cambridge Letters: Correspondence with Russell, Keynes, Moore, Ramsey, and Sraffa. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1997. Mellor, D. H. “Nothing like Experience.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 63 (1993): 1-16. Melnyk, Andrew. “Physicalism Unfalsified: Chalmers' Inconclusive Argument for Dualism.” In Physicalism and its Discontents, edited by B. Loewer and C. Gillett, 331-349. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Metzinger, Thomas., ed. Conscious Experience. Ferdinand Schoningh, 1995. Monk, Ray. How to read Wittgenstein. London: Granta, 2005. ——————. Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius. London: Jonathan Cape Ltd., 1990. Moody, Todd. “Why Zombies Won’t Stay Dead”. Journal of Consciousness Studies 2, no. (1995): 365-372. 152 ——————. “Conversations with Zombies”. Journal of Consciousness Studies 1, no. (1994): 196-200. Morick, Harold. Wittgenstein and the Problem of Other Minds. New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1967 (reprinted, 1981). Moser, Paul K. “Beyond the Private Language Argument.” Metaphilosophy: 23, no. & (1992): 77-89. Mott, Peter. “On the Function of Consciousness.” Mind 91 (1982): 423-9. Murata, J. “Consciousness and the mind-body Problem.” In Cognition, Computation, and Consciousness, edited by M. Ito, Y. Miyashita, and E. T. Rolls, 31-44. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Nagel, Thomas. “Conceiving the Impossible and the Mind-Body Problem.” Philosophy 73, no. 285 (1998): 337-52. —————. The View from Nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. ——————. “What is Like to Be a Bat?” Philosophical Review 83, no. (1974): 435-50. —————. “Subjective and Objective.” In Mortal Questions. Cambridge University Press, 1979. Nelkin, Norton. “How Sensations get their Names.” Philosophical Studies 87, no. 51 (1987): 325-39. Nemirow, Lawrence. “Physicalism and the Cognitive Role of Acquaintance.” In Mind and Cognition: A Reader, edited by W. Lycan, page. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990. —————. “Review of Nagel's Mortal Questions.” Philosophical Review 89 (1980): 473-7. Nida-Rumelin, M. “On belief about Experiences: An Epistemological Distinction applied to the Knowledge Argument against Physicalism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (1998): 51-73. ——————. “What Mary couldn't Know: Belief about Phenomenal States.” In Conscious Experience, edited by T. Metzinger, pages. Ferdinand Schoningh, 1995. Papineau, David. Thinking about Consciousness. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. 153 Pauen, Michael. “Painless Pain: Property Dualism and the Causal role of Phenomenal Consciousness.” American Philosophical Quarterly 37 (2000): 51-64. Pears, David. “Private Language [with reply from Hintikka].” In The Philosophy of Jaakko Hintikka, edited by Randall E. Auxier and Lewis Edwin Hahn, 393-411. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, 2006. —————. “The Structure of the Private Language Argument.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 43 (1989): 264-78. ——————. The False Prison, vols. Clarendon Press, 1988. Pelczar, Michael W. “Wittgensteinian Semantics.” Noûs 34, no. (2000): 483-516. ——————. “Kripke's Treatment of Investigations Chapter 50.” Philosophical Investigations 19, no.2 (1996): 159-163. Perez, Diana I. “Physicalism, Qualia and Mental Concepts.” Theoria 17, no. 44 (2002): 359-79. Perry, John. Knowledge, Possibility, and Consciousness. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001. Pitcher, George, ed. Wittgenstein: the Philosophical Investigations, Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1966. Place, Ullin. T. “Is Consciousness a Brain Process?” British Journal of Psychology XLVII (1956): 44-50. Popper, Karl R. “Some Remarks on Panpsychism and Epiphenomenalism.” Dialectica 31 (1997): 177-86. Price, Mark. C. “Should we expect to feel as if we Understand Consciousness?’” Journal of Consciousness Studies (1996): 303-12. Raymont, Paul. “The Know-how Response to Jackson's Knowledge Argument.” Journal of Philosophical Research 24 (1999): 113-26. —————. “Tye's Criticism of the Knowledge Argument.” Dialogue 34 (1995): 71326. Rey, Georges. “Wittgenstein, Computationalism, and Qualia.” In Philosophy and the Cognitive Sciences, edited by R. Casati, B. Smith, and S. White, page. HolderPichler-Tempsky, 1994. 154 Rhees, Rush. Wittgenstein and the Possibility of Discourse, 2nd edition, edited by D. Z. Phillips. Malden, Ma; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. Robinson, Denis. “Epiphenomenalism, Laws, and Properties.” Philosophical Studies 69 (1993): 1-34. Rudd, Anthony. J. “What it's like and what's really wrong with Physicalism: A Wittgensteinian perspective.” Journal of Consciousness Studies (1999): 454-63. Ruddick, Chester Townsend, “The Feeling of Feeling,” Philosophy of Science, 1, no. (1934): 361-365. Russell, Bertrand. “Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description.” In Proposition and Attitudes, edited by Nathan Salmon and Scott Soames, 16-32. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1988. —————. The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, edited and introduced by Pears David. La Salle: Open Court Publishing Company, 1985. Ryle, Gilbert. The Concept of Mind. New York: Harper Collins, 1949. Schweizer, Paul. “Physicalism, Functionalism, and Conscious Thought.” Minds and Machines (1996): 61-87. Searle, John, “Is the Brain’s Mind a Computer?” In The Theories of Mind: An Introductory Reader, edited by Eckert, Maureen, 144-155. (N. Y.: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006). —————. “Minds, Brains, and Program.” In Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings, 2nd ed., edited by John Perry, and Michael Bratman, 371-383. N. Y.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. ——————. Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge U.P., 1969. Shanon, Benny. “What is the Function of Consciousness?” Journal of Consciousness Studies (1998): 295-308. Shear, Jonathan, ed. Explaining Consciousness: the "hard problem”. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997. Shoemaker, Sydney. “Churchland on Reduction, Qualia, and Introspection”. Philosophy of Science Association (1984): 799-809. ——————. “The Inverted Spectrum”. Journal of Philosophy 79 (1982): 357-381. 155 Siebel, Mark. “Searle’s Representing Account of Illocutionary Acts and its Weak Spots.” 69 (2001): 97-111. Siewert, Charles. “What Dennett can't Imagine and why.” Inquiry (1993): Smart, J. J. C. “Sensations and Brain Processes.” In The Philosophy of Mind: Classical Problems/Contemporary Issues, 243-253, 2nd edition. London: Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006. Sprigge, Timothy L. S. “The Privacy of Experience.” Mind 78 (1969): 512-521. Stadler Friedrich, and Michael Stoltzner, eds. Time and History: Papers of the 28th International Wittgenstein Symposium Vol. XIII, Kirchberg/Wechsel: Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society, 2005. Stemmer, Nathan. “Physicalism and the Argument from Knowledge.” Journal of Philosophy 67 (1989): 84-91. Australasian Stern, David G. Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. ——————————. “‘A New Exposition of the Private Language Argument': Wittgenstein’s Notes for the "Philosophical Lecture"' Philosophical-Investigations 17, no. (1994): 552-565. Stocker, Michael A. G. “Memory and the Private Language Argument.” Philosophical Quarterly 16 (1966): 47-53. Stoljar, Daniel. “Two Conceptions of the Physical.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (2001): 253-81. —————. “What what it's like isn't like.” Analysis 56 (1996): 281-83. Thompson, J. Judith: “Private Languages.” In The Philosophy of Wittgenstein: The Private Language Argument, edited & intro by Canfield, V. John, 196-207. N. Y; London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1986. Tilghman, B. R. “What is it like to be an aardvark?” Philosophy 66 (1995): 325-38. Tye, Michael. “Knowing what it is like: The ability hypothesis and the Knowledge Argument.” In Consciousness, Color, and Content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000. ——————. “Phenomenal Consciousness: The Explanatory Gap as a Cognitive Illusion.” Mind 108 (1999): 705-25. 156 —————. “The Function of Consciousness.” Noûs 30 (1996): 287-305. —————. Ten Problems of Consciousness: A Representational Theory of the Phenomenal Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. ——————. “Qualia, Content, and the Inverted Spectrum.” Noûs 28, no. (1994): 159- 183. —————. “Reflections on Dennett and Consciousness.” Phenomenological Research 53 (1993):891-6. Philosophy and Uebel, Thomas E. “Physicalism in Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle,” Physics, philosophy, and the scientific community: essays in the philosophy and history of the natural sciences and mathematics in honor of Robert S. Cohen, edited by Kostas Gavroglu, John Stachel, Marx W. Wartofsky, 327-356. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1995. Van Gulick, R. “Understanding the Phenomenal Mind: Are we all just Armadillos?” In Consciousness: Psychological and Philosophical Essays, edited by Davies, M. and G. Humphreys, pages. Blackwell, 1993. Van-Heuveln, Bram, Eric Dietrich, and Michiharu Ochima. “Let's Dance! The Equivocation in Chalmers' Dancing Qualia Argument.” Minds and Machines no. (1998): 237-249. Verheggen, Claudine. “Wittgenstein and ‘Solitary’ Investigations 18, no. (1995): 329-47. Languages.” Philosophical Warner, Richard. “In Defense of a Dualism.” In The Mind-Body Problem: a Guide to the Current Debate, edited by R. Warner, and T. Szubka. Blackwell, 1994. Wassermann, Gerhard. “Reply to Popper's Attack on Epiphenomenalism.” Mind 88 (1979): 572-75. Watkins, Michael. “The Knowledge Argument against ‘The Knowledge Argument’.” Analysis 49 (1989): 158-60. Weiss, Paul. “Pain and Pleasure.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 3, no. (1942): 137-144. Whitely, C. H. “McGinn on the Mind-Body Problem.” Mind 99 (1990): 289. William, Meredith, ed. Wittgenstein, Mind and Meaning: Toward a Social Conception of Mind. London: New York: Routledge, 1998. 157 Wilson, Brenda. Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations: A Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998. Winch, Peter. “Introduction: The Unity of Wittgenstein’s Philosophy.” In Studies in the Philosophy of Wittgenstein, edited by Peter Winch, 1-19. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. The Big Typescript, TS. 213, edited and translated by C. Grant Luckhardt and Maximilian A.E. Aue. German-English scholar's ed. Carlton, Victoria: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2005. ——————. Philosophical Investigations, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe, and edited by G. E. M. Anscombe and R. Rhees (Oxford; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2001, 3rd ed.) ——————. Philosophical Occasions, 1912-1951, edited by Klagge, C. James, and Alfred Nordmann. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993. ——————. Wittgenstein’s Lectures: Cambridge, 1930-32, edited by Desmond Lee. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1980. ——————. Wittgenstein’s Lectures: Cambridge, 1932-35, edited by Alice Ambrose. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1979. ——————. Philosophical Remarks, edited by Rush Rhees, and translated by Raymond Hargreaves and Roger White. Oxford: Blackwell, 1975. ——————. Philosophical Grammar, edited by Rush Rhees, and translated by Anthony Kenny. Oxford: Blackwell, 1974. ——————. On Certainty, edited by G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright and translated by Denis Paul and G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell, 1969. —————. ‘Notes for Lectures on “Private Experience” and “Sense Data”.’ The Philosophical Review vol. 77, no. (1968): 275-320. ——————. Zettel, edited by G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright and translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. ——————. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, translated by D. F. Pears & B. F. McGuinness, and introduced by Bertrand Russell. New York, Humanities Press, 1961. —————. The Blue and the Brown Books (Preliminary Studies for the ‘Philosophical Investigations,’ Generally know as The Blue and Brown Books), edited by Rush Rhees. Oxford: Blackwell. 1958. 158 —————. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, 3d. ed., rev., edited by G. H. von Wright, R. Rhees, G. E. M. Anscombe; translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1978. Wright, Crispin. J. G. Rails to Infinity: Essays on Themes from Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001. —————. “Does Philosophical Investigations I §258 Suggest a Cogent Argument against Private Language?” In Subject, Thought, and Context, edited by John McDowell, and P. Pettit, 209-66. Oxford University Press, 1986. —————. Wittgenstein on the Foundations of Mathematics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980. Wright, Georg Henrik von. Wittgenstein. Oxford: Blackwell, 1982. Wuketits, F. “Consciousness Explained—or Explained away?” Acta Analytica (1994): 55-64. 159 [...]... that the person cannot have knowledge of the important features of the sensations that the words of my language refer to This objection will be attended to Some philosophers believe that speaking a private language is inconsistent with speaking a public language 1 The last part of this chapter argues that possession of a private language is compatible with possession of a public language It is logically... question about a putative user of the language with its meaning intact We can ask, for instance, whether it is possible for someone to have or use a private language In that event, the question whether a private language is possible can be rephrased in the following way: whether a putative private linguist can accomplish his task But the question is what the task of a putative private linguist is This chapter... use the language to make different kinds of speech acts The chapter also discusses alternative interpretations of the task of a private linguist Chapter Five is where the overall implication of the impossibility of a private language is argued The chapter connects the impossibility of a private language to the mind/body debate; i.e., it argues that phenomenal consciousness is physical It begins with an... an argument to the conclusion that conscious states are physical In that argument, the impossibility of a private language is then used as a counter-objection to a dualist attack against physicalism However, the goal in this chapter is not only to establish a connection between the impossibility of a private language and the idea that conscious states are physical; but also to attribute that view about... will argue, in agreement with Wittgenstein, that the private linguist faces the task of using a language in private Wittgenstein is often interpreted as holding that the private linguist faces the task of setting up the language I will argue that a language only its speaker can know to exist is impossible given that the speaker cannot use the language to say anything to himself That is, the person cannot... reader with exegetical matters It therefore raises the question whether the nature of a private language that this thesis defends is supported by the text Chapter Three brings to the fore a discussion of the relevant passages – to the idea of the nature of a private language set out in Chapter Two – from the Philosophical Investigations by engaging some scholars on the interpretations of those relevant... nature of a private language is In this chapter, I do not intend to discuss the private language argument itself, but to step back from it to ask: What is a private language ? My answer to this question is based primarily on Wittgenstein’s remarks in §243-§317 of the Philosophical Investigations There are two main features of a private language, as Wittgenstein understands it The first is that only the. .. cause, similar effect Given that the brakes systems of car x and car y are of a common origin, and that the mechanical fault in car x is caused by one of the brakes systems in car x, it is reasonable to infer that the system in car y will cause a similar mechanical fault Similar blokes will produce similar brake systems, and similar brakes systems will cause similar mechanical faults In the same way,... private use?—Well, can’t we do so in our ordinary language? —But that is not what I mean The individual words of this language are to refer to what can only be known to the person speaking; to his immediate private sensations So another person cannot understand the language (PI §243) Here Wittgenstein describes a private language as one that has the following features: (a) only the person speaking the. .. is theoretically possible, if we grant both the speaker and the audience a shared public language Suppose the speaker has a sensation, and he says in the words of L, “I have a so-and-so sensation” which, supposedly, the audience cannot understand Suppose the audience knows a language is being used by observing some correlating public features of the speaker The speaker can then use his public language . of using a language in private 67 II. Alternative interpretations of the PLA 81 iii CHAPTER FIVE: ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A PRIVATE LANGUAGE 104 I. An argument for the physical character. (i.e., use a private language) . Lastly, how might the impossibility of a private language impact other areas of philosophy? This thesis contends that the impossibility of a private language throws. individual speaker and any language, L, these three statements are inconsistent: (A) The speaker can have a public language. (B) There is a language, L, that only the speaker can understand.