Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that a language only one person could ever understand cannot work, because nothing outside that person exists to catch a wrong use of a word. A word needs a check its user does not control. Take that check away, and there is nothing left to get right or wrong.
more
What a private word would try to name
Wittgenstein’s target was not a foreign tongue or a secret code. It was a language built to name sensations that only their owner could feel. He asked readers to imagine keeping a diary and writing the sign “S” on every day a certain sensation turns up. A recent essay on the argument in the philosophy journal Think frames the same thought differently. You focus on the sensation and tell yourself, “I shall use ‘S’ to represent this,” then consult your diary later to see which days it recurred.
Either way, the same question undoes the scheme. Once the sensation has passed, what fixes what “S” meant, other than a memory of it?
Why a private definition can’t check itself
A public word gets corrected by something outside the speaker. The private sign “S” has no such witness. Concentrating on the sensation only guarantees a memory of what its user meant. It does not give a standard for judging whether “S” has been used correctly this time round. A private rule, on this reading, leaves nothing to fail against. Whatever feels right to the lone speaker simply counts as right. That means the word “right” has stopped doing any work.
One commentator pictures “S” as an idling wheel in a machine. It turns, but it cannot grab onto anything solid.
Not just about feelings, but about other minds
The private language argument sat inside a larger project. Wittgenstein treated many of philosophy’s hardest puzzles as products of what the BBC’s account calls a “bewitchment by language” rather than facts about the world. That list included whether another person is conscious at all, rather than a “zombie” going through the motions. He called his method a kind of philosophical therapy. Its aim was to “show the way out of the fly bottle” instead of arguing a rival theory into place. The private language thought experiment was one of the traps he built to spring on the problem of other minds.
Not everyone thinks the trap worked. The neuropsychologist Paul Broks, presenting the BBC’s account, suspects the fly never really got out of the bottle. The psychologist Nicholas Humphrey goes further. He argues that philosophy took a wrong turn in the twentieth century by making language its central puzzle. The privacy of each mind, in his view, is a stark and unwelcome fact about human existence.
Where the beetle in the box comes in
Wittgenstein made a related point with what has since become known as the beetle-in-the-box analogy. Nobody can reach another person’s experience to check it against their own, so meaning cannot rest in a private mind. Shared understanding does all the work language actually needs. A private inner match is not required, and it could not be verified even if it existed.
What philosophers make of the argument
Writing decades ago, the philosopher P. M. S. Hacker called the private language argument, if it holds up, one of the most important philosophical insights of its century. It was aimed at a picture of the mind that runs through psychology and linguistics as much as through ordinary self-reflection.
That picture is worth naming plainly. It treats the mind as a kind of secret garden, holding thoughts and feelings that only their owner can ever inspect. Wittgenstein’s target was narrower than denying that pain or mood are real. His claim was that a word cannot be introduced to stand for one of these purely inner items and still mean something.
What is left standing
None of this denies that sensations exist. It denies that an uncheckable private label could be what makes a word about them mean anything at all. A shared word survives for the opposite reason a private one fails. Other speakers can catch a slip, challenge a misuse, and hand a newcomer a standard that is already in place. That is work no solitary mind can do for itself.
Decades on, philosophers still disagree about what the argument is and whether it works. The author of the Think essay sets out three readings of it and argues that none succeeds.
