Five private language arguments

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
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 27,621
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Beyond the Private Language Argument.Paul K. Moser - 1992 - Metaphilosophy 23 (1-2):77-89.
Phenomenal Concepts and the Private Language Argument.David Papineau - 2011 - American Philosophical Quarterly 48 (2):175.
Private Languages and Private Theorists.David Bain - 2004 - Philosophical Quarterly 54 (216):427 - 434.
Wherefore the Failure of Private Ostension?George Wrisley - 2011 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (3):483 - 498.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

102 ( #49,437 of 2,169,093 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #345,851 of 2,169,093 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums