• 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

My Own Private Language?

May 22, 2012 by David Buchanan 7 Comments

Cain and Abel

Would it be reasonable to take Wittgenstein's case against private language as his case in favor of public language? Or is that too simple? As I was listening to episode 56, a quote from William James from Pragmatismcame to mind:

All human thinking gets discursified; we exchange ideas; we lend and borrow verifications, get them from one another by means of social intercourse. All truth thus gets verbally built out, stored up, and made available for everyone.

Hence, we must talk consistently just as we must think consistently: for both in talk and thought we deal with kinds. Names are arbitrary, but once understood they must be kept to. We mustn't now call Abel 'Cain' or Cain 'Abel.' If we do, we ungear ourselves from the whole book of Genesis, and from all its connexions with the universe of speech and fact down to the present time. We throw ourselves out of whatever truth that entire system of speech and fact may embody.

The demand for consistency in our uses of language is, according to James, almost a matter of remaining within the bounds of sanity. If we constantly confuse the murderers with their victims, we "ungear ourselves" from the whole universe of speech - and to have a private language, supposing it were possible, is to be isolated in the corner of dunces. Are James and Wittgenstein saying the same thing on this point?

-Dave Buchanan

(Image by Conrad Botes.)

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Misc. Philosophical Musings Tagged With: Ludwig Wittgenstein, philosophy blog, private language, William James

Comments

  1. dmf says

    May 22, 2012 at 9:56 am

    I think that James was making a kind of conservative point, not unlike Heidegger despite his idea of epochs, that imagines deep/collective roots in language, whereas for Wittgenstein private-language is an oxymoron.

    Reply
  2. dmf says

    May 22, 2012 at 11:09 am

    http://psych.stanford.edu/~michael/papers/Davidson_Derangement.pdf

    Reply
  3. David Buchanan says

    May 22, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    William James in “Pragmatism and Common Sense”: Here’s why we couldn’t understand lions (or lobsters and bees) even if they could talk.

    “My thesis now is this, that OUR FUNDAMENTAL WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT THINGS ARE DISCOVERIES OF EXCEEDINGLY REMOTE ANCESTORS, WHICH HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PRESERVE THEMSELVES THROUGHOUT THE EXPERIENCE OF ALL SUBSEQUENT TIME. They form one great stage of equilibrium in the human mind’s development, the stage of common sense. …In practical talk, a man’s common sense means his good judgment, his freedom from excentricity, his GUMPTION, to use the vernacular word. In philosophy it means something entirely different, it means his use of certain intellectual forms or categories of thought. Were we lobsters, or bees, it might be that our organization would have led to our using quite different modes from these of apprehending our experiences. It MIGHT be too (we cannot dogmatically deny this) that such categories, unimaginable by us to-day, would have proved on the whole as serviceable for handling our experiences mentally as those which we actually use.”

    Reply
    • dmf says

      May 22, 2012 at 2:49 pm

      yes I think that our comments here are in agreement James had this quasi-genetic/Peircian sense of language but where in Wittgenstein do you see something like an entire “system” of speech, or “connexions with the universe of speech and fact down to the present time” ?

      Reply
      • dmf says

        May 22, 2012 at 3:39 pm

        ps, not quizzing you here just trying to get a sense of where you (and more specifically your written words here as that’s what I have access to) are coming from and heading to, without working definitions this kind of context-less exchange is tough going at best.

        Reply
        • David Buchanan says

          May 22, 2012 at 4:13 pm

          Sorry, dmf, but I was not replying to your comments. I don’t mean to ignore them but I honestly don’t know what you’re saying and/or asking. If you’d care to unpack it, I’m listening.

          Reply
  4. Richard A. says

    May 28, 2012 at 3:29 am

    I am leaning towards saying that they are not saying the same thing. Wittgenstein is putting forth a really strong argument. He is saying that there can be no such thing as a private language. It cannot be done. His views about the ‘normal’ language game, setting aside the language game of S&M clubs for example, is very messy. James does not seem to be able to do this, and this is most likely due to his pragmatist position. If I remember right James held the view that science is what provides truth, and in that light having to be specific and exact in our use of language makes sense. His position is much closer to the early W in my opinion in seeing language as a tool of science and having to be exact in its usage.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

  • Jason Engelund on Ep. 318: Friedrich Schiller on the Civilizing Potential of Art (Part Three for Supporters)
  • Albi Bilali on Ep. 318: Friedrich Schiller on the Civilizing Potential of Art (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Jason Engelund on Ep. 318: Friedrich Schiller on the Civilizing Potential of Art (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Eric on Ep. 318: Friedrich Schiller on the Civilizing Potential of Art (Part One)
  • Vincent Czyz on Lucifer: How a Decent Deity Got a Bad Rap (Part 1)

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