• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Do Phenomenal Concepts Negate Wittgenstein’s Private Language Argument?

May 16, 2012 by Daniel Horne 2 Comments

Watch on Vimeo

In the video above, Prof. David Papineau compares different "naturalist" theories of consciousness to propose that phenomenal concepts pose a problem for Wittgenstein's private language argument. (A version of this issue was briefly raised during the second episode discussing Philosophical Investigations.) Hint: If you're not yet familar with the "Mary's Room" thought experiment, it would be helpful to review a synopsis.

Click here for Papineau's paper, which commits the lecture to print, and might make it easier to follow:

The question I now wish to address is whether phenomenal concepts are inconsistent with Wittgenstein's private language argument. Certainly there would seem to be a tension here. After all, phenomenal concepts are posited specifically to accommodate distinctive ways of thinking about subjective states. Moreover, these ways of thinking are only available to people who have had those experiences themselves. This certainly looks like the kind of thing Wittgenstein was against.

Still, we should not be too quick. Clearly Wittgenstein did not want to rule out all possible terminology for states which would normally be counted as ‘subjective’. After all, words like 'pain' and 'seeing something red' are normal everyday terms. Nor presumably would he have objected to the idea that, once you have had certain experiences, you are thereby able to imaginatively recreate them and introspectively reidentify them in ways that you couldn't before.

However, phenomenal concepts involve more than these relatively digestible aspects of discourse about ‘subjective’ states.

Papineau is refreshingly articulate regarding his "scientific realist" views; to wit, yes, things really do exist, even if you can't directly observe them. He had a clever back-and-forth with Nigel Warburton on Philosophy Bites, where he came across to me as more a pragmatist than anything else:

Q: So you're saying that we should be a skeptic about some areas of science, and a realist about others?

A: Absolutely. And if you think that I'm kind of giving up on, "Well I promised you earlier scientific realism," well, that's too bad, because it seems to me the position I've outlined is obviously the sensible one. I mean, if you think about the question in the first place, "Should we be realists about science, about everything put forward by people who claim the authority of scientists," well, why should we? I mean, we should be realists about good theories and we should be skeptical about dodgy ones.

Q: The difficulty, of course, is finding out which are good and which are dodgy.

A: Good...

-Daniel Horne

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Things to Watch Tagged With: consciousness, Ludwig Wittgenstein, naturalism, philosophy blog, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind

Comments

  1. Christopher says

    May 18, 2012 at 11:40 am

    I think an important part of what Wittgentstein was trying to get at is summed up by David Foster Wallace in the following:

    “That everybody is identical in their secret unspoken belief that way deep down they are different from everyone else.”

    Reply
  2. dmf says

    May 19, 2012 at 11:08 am

    The novelist Siri Hustvedt engages Hans Breiter, director of Harvard Laboratory of Neuroimaging and Genetics, about her neurological condition, marking the publication of her new book “The Shaking Woman or a History of My Nerves.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Bibliophile on Pretty Much Pop #143: Pinocchio the Unfilmable (Yet Frequently Filmed)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 302: Erasmus Praises Foolishness (Part Two)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)
  • MartinK on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in