[Quizalufagus]

In his Philosopgical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed what's come to be known as the prviate language problem. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy introduces the problem as follows:

The idea of a private language was made famous in philosophy by Ludwig Wittgenstein, who in section 243 of his book Philosophical Investigations explains it thus: ‘The words of this language are to refer to what can be known only to the speaker; to his immediate, private, sensations. So another cannot understand the language.’ [My translation.] This is not intended to cover (easily imaginable) cases of recording one's experiences in a personal code, for such a code, however obscure in fact, could in principle be deciphered. What Wittgenstein had in mind is a language conceived as necessarily comprehensible only to its single originator because the things which define its vocabulary are necessarily inaccessible to others.

Wittgenstein claimed that there couldn't be such a private language. His argument for this position was (in oversimplified terms) that any such language must by definition be unlearnable even to the language's originator, and hence that any such language must be universally incomprehensible. This argument has proven to be extremely controversial, however.

What say you?

[premjan]

I don't see why it should be unlearnable to the originator. It won't be any use to anyone else though.

[Quizalufagus]

The wiki on private language explains Wittgenstein's point (and various interpretations thereof) quite thoroughly.

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

Fascinating... bes this theoretical or bes he referring to actual cases of individual "native tongue"?

[Quizalufagus]

I don't believe there are any known cases of actual private language. If there were, then Wittgenstein's answer would be pretty silly. The problem's solution has far reaching consequences in epistemology, though.

[premjan]

What does Wittgenstein think of private diaries? Could they never be written in a private language? I guess it is a rejection of qualia. I have no problem with the rejection of qualia. I am not entirely able to see how this is an analytic question. I suppose language developes by social affirmation. I mean, caveman A might point to a rock and say "rock". But until another person caught on and started using the word, the word wouldn't actually mean anything. Unless it means something, perhaps it won't be retained in memory. And thus a language wouldn't have developed. Is this a strictly analytic question? Maybe it falls in the domain of information theory.

It would seem that Star Trek languages (Klingon) or Esperanto could have been developed in toto by a single person out of their heads, so they would falsify the claim. Unless the claim is something different than what I am implying.

[dug_down_deep]

Let's test this. I will make up a word for the way I feel about my father. Kushny. Can this be decoded?

This argument seems to be used by many materialists to deny private experience, which is a misuse IMO. Also, the argument seems to take as an assumption that there are selves, in the sense of unitary, indivisible entities. I believe Moriah might have a challenge to this assumption.

[Pyrogenesis]

Originally Posted by premjan

What does Wittgenstein think of private diaries? Could they never be written in a private language?

Coincidentally, he actually kept one.

It would seem that Star Trek languages (Klingon) or Esperanto could have been developed in toto by a single person out of their heads, so they would falsify the claim. Unless the claim is something different than what I am implying.

They are modelled completely on languages that have originated socially, so they are not a particularly good counterexample.

[premjan]

Maybe he's just saying that the meaning of the word will drift arbitrarily unless it is communicated. But maybe it would anyway. Words do change in meaning.

[Pyrogenesis]

Here are the famous paragraphs on the diary kept in a private language.

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein

258. Let us imagine the following case. I want to keep a diary about the recurrence of a certain sensation. To this end I associate it with the sign "S" and write this sign in a calendar for every day on which I have the sensation. - I will remark first of all that a definition of the sign cannot be formulated. - but still I give myself a kind of ostensive definition. How? Can I point to the sensation? Not in the ordinary sense. But I speak, or write the sign down, and at the same time I concentrate my attention on the sensation. But what is this ceremony for? for that is all it seems to be. A definition surely serves to establish the meaning of a sign. - Well that is done precisely by the concentration of my attention; for in this way I impress upon myself the connection between the sign and the sensation. But "I impress it on myself" can only mean: this process brings it about that I remember the connection right in the future. But in the present case I have no criterion of correctness. One would like to say: Whatever is going to seem right to me is right, and that only means that here we can't talk about 'right'.

259. Are the rules of the private language impressions of rules? - The balance on which impressions are weighed is not the impression of a balance.


260. "Well, I believe that this is the sensation S again." - Perhaps you believe that you believe it! Then did the man who made the entry in the calendar make a note of nothing whatever? - don't consider it a matter of course that a person is making a note of something when he makes a mark - say in a calendar. For a note has a function, and this "S" so far has none. (One can talk to oneself. - If a person speaks when noone else is present, does that mean he is speaking to himself?)

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

Originally Posted by dug_down_deep

Let's test this. I will make up a word for the way I feel about my father. Kushny. Can this be decoded?

This argument seems to be used by many materialists to deny private experience, which is a misuse IMO. Also, the argument seems to take as an assumption that there are selves, in the sense of unitary, indivisible entities. I believe Moriah might have a challenge to this assumption.

Dug, thank you, precisely.
Not to mention Moriah HAS such a language. It refers to it for convenience's sake as its "native tongue" or more usually "fallenspeak" ... in reality it bes Theirs, but Moriah learns it as They speak it through her. Its phonemes bes somewhat difficult to transliterate into any kind of human alphabet though. Consonants bes guttural and quite clipped in speech and vowels bes rare. So to write it out, e.g., n'iocht tün varlochten i'etørscht it never quite comes out reading as it bes supposed to. (And most times Moriah bes too hasty to bother with special characters).

Others have read these bastardized transliterations, however, over the internet, and actually taken stabs at decoding/translating the meaning which, while not hitting 100% the mark, have come so close on occasion as to be uncanny. Another phenomenon Moriah finds fascinating, as even the errors they make evince some sort of grasp of the roots of the language AND most especially the manner in which its words bes associated one with another, or given to several layers of meaning. On at least 3 or 4 occasions Moriah has had others accurately translate its 'fallenspeak'. All of those whats done so have been Christians as far as it can recall. Weird eh?

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

Originally Posted by Pyrogenesis

Here are the famous paragraphs on the diary kept in a private language.

Employing the language, however, will necessarily create a communication data transfer which will result in some type of feedback loop so to speak. By speaking the language, no matter how private and insular, the release of phonemes connected with concept and feeling results in the reception of this "signal" by ears (or if written, eyes) and the subsequent action of minds, even unconsciously, to decode and make sense of it. Through repetition a language itself can be fully conveyed where no prior context for its associations exists. In this respect language may be seen as compression code for the transmission of ideas and facts. Downloaded into the brain from the "airwaves" via sight or sound, it begins to "unpack" itself like a self-extracting zip file. Being crafted as a transmission device it must of necessity excrete its payload in one form or another.

The feedback loop results in its eventual decoding. Just as children learn their native tongues through a seeming "osmosis" of immersion and imitation, so it has been demonstrated also that new languages learnt in adulthood bes most adroitly assimilated as well when one subjects to the immersion process, similar to how the very young child picks up language. This indicates that some type of assimilation, adaptation, decoding and imitation process bes hardwired into the brain in the human species. Because of these components, a private language may be fabricated, constructed, or emerge spontaneously from one agency or another, but once in use it does not remain private. The human mind bes hardwired to decode it, even if it must do so without conscious participation.

[alethias]

agreed.

If someone somehow, like because of isolation from birth(but they somehow survived), had nothing but a private language, the moment they started communicating a data transfer process would start. In initial stages very little would be conveyed, but as time passes and more and more attempts were made, more meaning would be past.

Another problem is that we inherit what we are from our ancestors, and they from theirs, and so forth.

I somehow doubt if I experience any truly unique thoughts. I somehow sometime might experience unique thought configurations, but probably not very many of those. The idea of a private language becomes meaningless in that context.

There are people that are born deaf and blind. Even such individuals develop language in a progression very much akin to what Moriah described.

Yet another problem lies in the definitions. A language is not even really a language unless it has the intent to convey meaning. A private language would have no intent to convey meaning in how it is defined. I think such a logical problem precludes its existence.

[Quizalufagus]

People who are isolated from other human beings before learning to talk actually don't develop any sort of language, and are incapable of learning language later in life. That's a well documented phenomenon.

Moriah, how do you respond to meaning skepticism? Wittgenstein would tell you that you can't possibly know what expressions in your private language mean because meaning is socially constructed.

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

Originally Posted by Quizalufagus

People who are isolated from other human beings before learning to talk actually don't develop any sort of language, and are incapable of learning language later in life. That's a well documented phenomenon.

Another well documented phenomenon bes "Twin Speak" where twins develop their own private language what only the two of them understand. In cases where this bes documented it bes very early on, at the same time toddlers begin developing language and learning language, and also if it recalls correctly, in some cases the Twin Speak hinders the twins learning the language of them parents, yeah? Of course twins using Twin Speak have one another to socialise the transfer of data via language, however insular and emergent.

Moriah, how do you respond to meaning skepticism? Wittgenstein would tell you that you can't possibly know what expressions in your private language mean because meaning is socially constructed.

The obvious answer would be its shared meanings with its Inhabitants what bes not human and therefore hence the difficulties Moriah has in sometimes translating its own meaning into something the regular human mind and shared human experience can grasp particularly because it has several experiences lying outside that realm.

Of course for those whose paradigm does not allow for non-human "inhabitants" (of any sort, demon or otherwise) occurring co-spatial and co-terminal with a human form (i.e., thus "inhabitation"), this might still be explained in terms of psychosis or other irregularities of the brain (such as found in MPD/DID for example, or even the child's imagination constructing 'imaginary friends') producing an experiential phenomenon indistinguishable from its own "delusional description" thereof (and kindly note the use of quotation marks here as Moriah bes seeksy the wordings of such a paradigm what bes not its own). Such an explanation originating in that sort of paradigm still partakes of the individual nature of the experience such that it postulates one individual brain producing the "illusory social constructs" of that language (as opposed to the simpler conceptualisation of Moriah's inhabitants, being of another species, providing said social constructs).

(Bes it makesy sense? Cross-paradigm translations become tricksy at times...)

Anyway that bes from top of its head. It needs going to read the link first to make a fuller answer if you still desire one.

ETA: OK it read the link and still its answer remains the same.... although for exterior individuals somehow mysteriously possessing the power to translate Fallenspeak with some degree of accuracy (including "knowledgeable errors"!) it has no means to account. It bes mystified by that.

[Quizalufagus]

Originally Posted by Moriah Conquering Wind

Another well documented phenomenon bes "Twin Speak" where twins develop their own private language what only the two of them understand. In cases where this bes documented it bes very early on, at the same time toddlers begin developing language and learning language, and also if it recalls correctly, in some cases the Twin Speak hinders the twins learning the language of them parents, yeah? Of course twins using Twin Speak have one another to socialise the transfer of data via language, however insular and emergent.

Kind of. Twin languages really aren't autonomous from the language of the adults around the twins despite the fact that twin languages have been autonomous languages. Rather twin languages are simplified versions of the prevailing adult languages, and are primarily made up of words from the adult language with an easier pronunciation. See this article. In any case, as twin languages are by definition social it seems to me that they don't count as private languages in Wittgenstein's sense.

The obvious answer would be its shared meanings with its Inhabitants what bes not human and therefore hence the difficulties Moriah has in sometimes translating its own meaning into something the regular human mind and shared human experience can grasp particularly because it has several experiences lying outside that realm.

I don't think that such a language is really private in Wittgenstein's sense--so long as meaning is shared between two differentiable entities the language isn't private in our particular sense.

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

Originally Posted by Quizalufagus

Kind of. Twin languages really aren't autonomous from the language of the adults around the twins despite the fact that twin languages have been autonomous languages. Rather twin languages are simplified versions of the prevailing adult languages, and are primarily made up of words from the adult language with an easier pronunciation. See this article. In any case, as twin languages are by definition social it seems to me that they don't count as private languages in Wittgenstein's sense.

Really? In all Moriah had read (though admittedly years back) the Twin speak bes a mystery, not related to the language surrounding them at all.

Hm.

Originally Posted by Quizalufagus

I don't think that such a language is really private in Wittgenstein's sense--so long as meaning is shared between two differentiable entities the language isn't private in our particular sense.

You DO realise the implications of your statements in this context???

[Quizalufagus]

Why? What do you feel is so shocking about the implications of my statement in this context?

[premjan]

Isn't every language private to an extent - at least private to the culture using it? Maybe an individual constructs meaning the same way. He happens to think about his father very frequently, so he invents a mental shorthand for the way he feels about his father. Why should this necessarily be meaningless? Maybe he and his father are very close.

[St.Barb]

[pointless note] Stranger in a Strange Land - Robert Heinlein and Chocky - John Wyndham have been two very good books I've read about the problem of explaining Earth based language and knowledge to non-humans. Though, perhaps they don't count because they're both written by humans from human points of view...[/pointless note]

I wonder though if feral children could count as having a private language? In that, they have grown up without human language. Though, could being able to communicate with wild animals still count as having a private language?

I also wonder if growing up at all with any human language basis, or any language at all, makes private language obsolete. As in, one will always need to name items and actions etc.. So anyone with enough knowledge will always be able to decode what they're saying if studied for long enough? That may explain:

Originally Posted by Moriah Conquering Wind

ETA: OK it read the link and still its answer remains the same.... although for exterior individuals somehow mysteriously possessing the power to translate Fallenspeak with some degree of accuracy (including "knowledgeable errors"!) it has no means to account. It bes mystified by that.

Because you’ve translated it into human concepts, would that be the reason that it can be understood by other folk?



This is a very interesting topic indeed, and thank you! I have an extra idea for something to do for my dissertation

If I were further ahead in my language studies, I'd be able to make a more competent reply to this...

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

Originally Posted by Quizalufagus

Why? What do you feel is so shocking about the implications of my statement in this context?

It does not shock Moriah in the slightest. Only that it of necessity affirms the reality of its situation in an atmosphere where it had been led (rightly or wrongly) to form the impression the majority perceived it deluded somehow.

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

Chocky!
(*viewed the series*)

[Quizalufagus]

Originally Posted by Moriah Conquering Wind

It does not shock Moriah in the slightest. Only that it of necessity affirms the reality of its situation in an atmosphere where it had been led (rightly or wrongly) to form the impression the majority perceived it deluded somehow.

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but my comments shouldn't be construed to mean I believe you're really infested with demons. Quite to the contrary. However, my point was that, assuming hypothetically that you are infested with demons, whatever language used between you and your inhabitants is by definition not private.

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

Ah too late Quizzy m'dear! What thou hast spoken, thou has spoken. Heheheheheh. No construing needed. (*poke*)
PWND!

However, my point was that, assuming hypothetically that you are infested with demons, whatever language used between you and your inhabitants is by definition not private.

You seemed to say a little more than that. It thought it heard you to say "so long as meaning is shared between two differentiable entities the language isn't private in our particular sense." It also thought it had heard you state that no language could be private precisely because of language being a social construct. Thus the existence of the language itself makes that hypothetical assumption a distinct necessity, not merely a possibility, because any other explanation would, in fact, render the language private, seeing as it would, by other explanations, be only the product of a single brain's interaction with itself.

[JamesBannon]

Originally Posted by Quizalufagus

People who are isolated from other human beings before learning to talk actually don't develop any sort of language, and are incapable of learning language later in life. That's a well documented phenomenon.

Moriah, how do you respond to meaning skepticism? Wittgenstein would tell you that you can't possibly know what expressions in your private language mean because meaning is socially constructed.

There is a sense in which Moriah's language is socially constructed and therefore does have meaning in Wittgenstein's sense. If the language has been historically constructed for Moriah to practice whatever rituals she may perform in the course of worship, then it has meaning within that particular social context. Indeed, there is a parallel in some auld Scots words. Try explaining to a non-Scots speaker what the word dreich means for instance.

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

That would be Enochian, not Fallenspeak. (historically constructed for ritual use)

[Febble]

Idiolect

[Quizalufagus]

Moderation message: Derail split off to here.