Five private language arguments


Authors
Abstract
This paper distinguishes five key interpretations of the argument presented by Wittgenstein in Philosophical Investigations I, §258. I also argue that on none of these five interpretations is the argument cogent. The paper is primarily concerned with the most popular interpretation of the argument: that which that makes it rest upon the principle that one can be said to follow a rule only if there exists a 'useable criterion of successful performance' (Pears) or 'operational standard of correctness' (Glock) for its correct application. This principle, I suggest, is untrue. The private language argument upon which it rests therefore fails.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/09672550410001679837
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 41,507
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Wittgenstein's Private Language Investigation.Y. Lin Francis - 2017 - Philosophical Investigations 40 (3):257-281.
El Argumento del lenguaje privado a contrapelo.Pedro Karczmarczyk (ed.) - 2011 - Editorial de la Universidad de la Plata (Edulp).

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
113 ( #66,089 of 2,248,762 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #605,972 of 2,248,762 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature