What is experience without some sort of mental representation of what has happened? The entirety of language is in fact not just a set of names. It is also true to say that any mental representation is formed after any event has taken place - experience is a mental representation - catch my drift?
The Private Language Argument
Richard Floyd explains a notorious example of Wittgenstein’s public thought.
First, of course, we have to agree on the meaning of “sensations”:
“Sensations are often ascribed particular properties: of being conscious and inner, of being more immediate than perception, and of being atomic. In epistemology sensations have been taken as infallible foundations of knowledge, in psychology as elementary constituents of perceptual experience.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Got that?
Then, assuming that we can all agree on the appropriate definition, there’s the part where we connect that to any particular sensation that we experience in regard to a particular word that we either hear or use given a particular set of circumstances.
That part of course is nowhere to be seen in this article. Let alone how a distinction might be made between the language that we share begetting sensations that can be communicated back and forth intelligibly and a “private language” begetting private sensations that cannot.
On the other hand, I may well be misunderstanding the point he is making here. Still, aside from the purely personal reasons that someone might feel motivates them to create and then to sustain a “private language”, this choice either will or will not spill over into their interactions with others. And that either will or will not cause conflicts.
And it is focusing in on social, political and economic conflicts in the is/ought world that is the main interest of me. What then of a “private language”?
The Private Language Argument
Richard Floyd explains a notorious example of Wittgenstein’s public thought.
Yep. That’s basically my own reaction to a private definition and a private meaning for words used in a private language. Sure, if, for whatever personal reason, you choose to do this, either keep it to yourself or attempt to communicate it to others who accept your own subjective codes.
Only if and when this communication has practical implications for those not able to decode the exchange would it become more problematic.
My point instead is that in regard to communication that revolves around conflicting goods, a kind of “private language” can lead to all manner of dire consequences. Your definition and your meaning of freedom and justice revolve around women being able to abort their unborn babies/clumps of cells, while for others they revolve around the unborn being brought into this world.
This behaviorism?
“…the theory that human and animal behavior can be explained in terms of conditioning, without appeal to thoughts or feelings, and that psychological disorders are best treated by altering behavior patterns…”
Of course here language would seem to revolve around an amoral approach to human interactions. Being in a position of power to mold and manipulate – condition – human behaviors to serve your own wants and needs. Or the wants and the needs of “society”. In that sense what you defend or attack can be seen as largely beside the point.
And language becomes “private” more in terms of “one of us” vs. “one of them”.
Question of the Month
How Does Language Work?
The following answers to the question of linguistic meaning each win a random book.
Clearly then the starting point in regard to any discussions of human language are the biological imperatives necessary to create the sounds we call words. It’s like trying to imagine the “human condition” had there not been the mutations that led to opposable thumbs. Some things are [on a fundamental level] our genes all the way down. At least to begin with.
So, sans any particular birth defects, we all come into the world with the capacity to make those sounds that become words that are able to communicate the sort of information and knowledge that accounts for the existence of human history.
What’s left then, after accepting this, is focusing in on all the reasons why, if this is the case, there are in the historical record so many instances of our “failure to communicate”. Precipitating any number of conflicts up to and including world wars.
Again, if you keep all of this philosophical “analysis” anchored to the either/or world – cats and lions – you can manage to communicate with a minimal amount of dysfunction. After all, these points will certainly seem reasonable to most of us. But if the discussion shifts to contexts that members of, say, Peta are more inclined to pursue – how ought human beings treat other animals? – you can whisper or shout your points all day long and the communication can continue to break down.
Why?
That’s my own interest in language here.
Question of the Month
How Does Language Work?
The following answers to the question of linguistic meaning each win a random book.
Ivan Trengrove, Victor Harbor, South Australia
Talking however is only really useful to a species that has many different things to talk about. A species that thinks on a level far, far beyond fish and birds. Or even chimpanzees. While most species of animals are able to communicate with sounds, they don’t invent philosophies to to talk about on the internet.
No doubt about it. Biological imperatives are the starting blocks. We only communicate as we do here because whatever is behind the biological evolution of life itself, has culminated in the human species here on planet Earth. But, again, biology is behind all species of animals. With our own however the communication becomes considerably more…problematic?
For example:
But a few indeed. And that’s because it’s not only the technical aspect of language communication that explodes in complexity among our own species…but the actual subjects that we can talk about as well. The part where social, political and economic memes come into play. Anthropology, ethnography, sociology, psychology, political science, philosophy, ethics and on and on.
In other words, the part where communication begins to break down and distinctions can be made between objective truths and subjective opinions.
Question of the Month
How Does Language Work?
The following answers to the question of linguistic meaning each win a random book.
Philosophy Now Magazine
Madeleine Maggs, Basingstoke, Hampshire
Or we could take the word “freedom”. Or “justice”.
My point of course is that we can discuss them as we do “fork”. But a fork is an actual thing. Something invented for a specific purpose. Whereas “freedom” and “justice” are less objective things than attempts to encompass our subjective reaction to particular sets of circumstances which trigger behaviors which trigger consequences that some will embrace and others will not. Some will insist that their freedom to own guns outweighs the wishes of those who wish to be free to live in a community where guns are not allowed to be owned.
What constitutes justice here?
There is a big difference between saying that legally the Indianapolis gunman was free to purchase a gun and that morally he ought to have been free to purchase a gun.
And then in differentiating those parts that we all share in common such that particular words have the same meaning “for all practical purposes” and the parts that are rooted more in the arguments that I make about the subjective/subjunctive “I”.
Thus the part where “my language” is able to be or not to be effectively intertwined in “your language” given a situation that we both share.
I just go considerably further out on the limb when I speak of my own moral and political value judgments as being “fractured and fragmented”.
Question of the Month
How Does Language Work?
The following answers to the question of linguistic meaning each win a random book.
Philosophy Now Magazine
J.I. Hans Bakker, semioticsigns.com, Canada
It seems rather simple for some. Two or more people are trying to communicate something, anything…given their interactions out in this or that world. Interactions that in particular revolve around the “for all practical purposes” necessity to subsist.
So, language works if they are successful in communicating their wants and needs. Language does not work if they are not successful. Then back to the distinction that I make in regard to communication in the is/ought world.
Thus, philosophically…
These intellectual contraptions can become nothing short of, well, unintelligible. All of the technical aspects derived from logic and epistemology that allow us to explore human communication in ways that may or may not be relevant to actual human interactions. And I don’t pretend to be able to make the proper distinction. All I can do is to ask those who think that they can to bring their conclusions to the arguments I make in my signature threads in regard to “morality here and now”.
Question of the Month
How Does Language Work?
The following answers to the question of linguistic meaning each win a random book.
Philosophy Now Magazine
Colin Brookes, Woodhouse Eaves, Leicestershire
I would merely come back to the distinction here between the language that we use in our existential, intersubjective interactions that involve conflicting moral and political value judgments, and the language that we use that seems to convey essential, objective truths in the either/or world.
Unfortunately, this distinction does not appear to be the primary concern here. Instead, it seems to treat language as though, technically, philosophers – postmodern or otherwise – first need to grasp it within the confines of logic and epistemology. And I certainly don’t dispute the importance of this. I merely ask those who come to particular conclusions here to take those conclusions out into the world that we live in from day to day and note how those conclusions are applicable to the distinction that I make.
How about this: In using the word “contrary” and “mitigation” you include a context in which it becomes far, far clearer why those words were used. John believes sport hunting is a good thing. On the contrary, says Jim, it is a bad thing. Then an in depth discussion regarding their reasons why.
John has been convicted of a crime. At the penalty phase witnesses are called to present mitigating circumstances to lessen his sentence. But others are called to present aggravating circumstances in order to lengthen it instead. How hard here is it to distinguish signifiers, signifieds and referents?
You tell me what the philosophical significance of this is given a particular contested context. Either the meaning and word are communicated together effectively or they are not.
Or, sure, I’m missing the point altogether such that unless I grasp the technical meaning here, I may well completely misconstrue important aspects of human interaction.
Question of the Month
How Does Language Work?
The following answers to the question of linguistic meaning each win a random book.
Philosophy Now Magazine
Frank S. Robinson, Albany, NY
In fact, the difference may well be so vast there really is no answer that any language on Earth will ever be able to encompass. And even then only presuming that both the question and the answer are not embedded ineffably in a wholly determined universe.
Well, without language every communication would seem to revolve around “show me”. If you wished to convey to a neighbor that a storm had blown down a tree in your backyard and you didn’t want to have to take him down the block to your yard to show him, we would need to invent something like hand gestures or finger movements or facial expressions that would then become the abstract shortcuts that words convey for us now.
Unless of course human brains [and the language we use here to discuss them] are just nature’s own equivalent of ones and zeros. But what always interest me about this “self” [and whatever language any particular one of them chooses to use] is the part where unlike computers that, correctly programmed, are in sync with what is objectively true in the either/or world, there does not appear to be a way to program our own brains so as to be correct in regard to the words used in arguments revolving around, say, this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Especially once the language used is not part of a thought experiment but involves an actual situation in which the lives of flesh and blood human beings are at stake. Or think Kant and that knock on the door. Tell the truth or not?
very simply, objective criteria follow a calculus of spatial varience that concurrently changes the supposed lowest platformal foundation.
The language changes very imperceptively, as the idea of reception and projection allow, namely on the persistent dialectical ground.
The resulting image template like a lens, adjusts for a reasonable circle of light through the expanding and contracting pupil., that translates automatic mechanical varience to axiomatically adjusted meaning.
That does not differentiate between the functional and the thougought experiment as testing it’self.
Every linguistic usage then, is based on very delicate micro experiments. They contain calculated functional, yet imperceptible tests for missing elemental foundations.
That is why calculation always rests on continuous retests between various minima-maximal; and seemingly static , primitive, overgeneralized concepts with the degrees relating to the mist complex variences.
Exactly!!! 
meno_ says:
“That does not differentiate between the functional and the though as testing it’self.”
Error: it should read: “that dies nit differentiate between the functional and the thought experiment as testing it’s self”
I understand Iambigious the problem with this hinges between a sense of what I mean and the sense of down to earth philosophy, to me down to earth is at varience with what the cumulative sense of it’s meaning may be, and that is , i believe the primary difference.
Objectively speaking the common sense of ‘bringing it down to reality’ may be fractured into the nihilism You espouse.
Perhaps someday in language that I can actually understand – and I’m not the only one here who would note this – you will finally come clean as to what motivates you to post the sort of things that you did above. It’s mostly just gibberish to me but, sure, maybe not.
You won’t bring what I deem to be your obtuse assessments “down to earth” given particular sets of circumstances. And there is always the possibility it’s just a Alan Sokal character that you are playing here. Exposing the “intellectual contraptions” of those like Satyr, Magnus, Parodites and others here. Or, sure, maybe a “condition”.
And I suspect that English is not the language that you grew up with…so there’s always the part that this might play.
But if it is none of the above and you actually are convinced that your points are intelligible, what I wouldn’t give to borrow that machine Maia and I talk about…the one where we are both hooked up to it and I am actually able to understand what motivates you to post what you do here on the philosophy board.
Why are you always talking about conflicting goods?
Just because something is conflicting doesn’t make it some universal paradox,
that you need to constantly worry about.
Okay, let’s explore this in regard to a moral conflagration that we are all likely to be familiar. One side embraces one set of behaviors while the other side embraces another, conflicting set of behaviors .
Now, of course, if we could come up with the language [philosophical or otherwise] that did indeed encompass a universal moral truth here than all rational and virtuous people would be obligated to embody it. Or, if they chose not to, it could at least be established that they were wrong not to.
The Humanist equivalent of God and Judgment Day?
Don’t you read the heated exchanges here between, among others, the liberals and the conservatives, the capitalists and the socialists on the Society, Government, and Economics board.
Don’t the moral objectivists – the fulminating fanatics – at both ends of the political spectrum often become infuriated when “the other side” refuses to “see the light”.
And what is this light if not their conviction that their own value judgments do in fact reflect their own rendition of a universal moral agenda.
You pick the conflagration.
Straight out of the headlines for example.
So what if people disagree on things?
That was bound to happen.
A world without disagreement is not possible / real.
Both random and non random shapes the mind and beliefs.
Not all ideas are compatible.
That is obvious.
Toddlers know this stuff.
“The sky is blue.”, uh oh, im a big bad objectivist.
I’m sorry, but we’ll still need an actual context in which to explore yet another of your “general description intellectual contraptions”.
I may as well be having this discussion with Satyr. 
Question of the Month
How Does Language Work?
The following answers to the question of linguistic meaning each win a random book.
Philosophy Now Magazine
James Malcolm, West Molesey, Surrey
Now you’re talking: That distinction.
I come across it all the time here. I’m challenged to define a particular word. That way – technically – we can all be on the same page. The part where subjective nuances come in however is the part where we actually use the words in our interactions with others from day to day.
But even here I am clear about another distinction: defining words used in the either/or world and words used in the is/ought world. Words used to describe objective facts and words used to encompass personal opinions.
The part the objectivist among us fuse into “my way or the highway”.
Of course there are the musical instruments that Neil Young used here: youtu.be/m5FCcDEA6mY
And the instruments used by Lynyrd Skynyrd here: youtu.be/ye5BuYf8q4o
The same instruments by and large. And the language spoken is the same: English.
But then the part where those on both sides insist the other side is out of tune in regard to any number of things. What about the limitations of language then?
Or, philosophically…
On the other hand, there’s still the distinction here that I keep coming back to. The part where language works because it can work and the part where it may not ever be able to work.
Question of the Month
How Does Language Work?
Philosophy Now Magazine
Jim Farrer, Kirriemuir, Scotland
And we’ve been squabbling over where to draw the line ever since. In fact, one suspects, ever since the first philosopher centuries ago insisted that others are obligated to draw it in the same place that he does. And that’s before the subjunctive “I” starts in on collecting, assessing and then ranking all of the hopelessly conflicting religious, ideological and deontological assumptions.
Here too however the rest is history. In other words, what on earth does language of this sort convey to me that it does not convey to you or to others? I keep coming back to “we’ll need a context, of course”, but, okay, you tell be a better alternative. The tools are there for all of us: language, perceptions, concepts. So why throughout history have we only been able to embrace reason as it pertains to the either/or world. Why not the other one?
Instead…
Everything you need to know about lanaguage…except its profound limitations when it comes to what, in my view, is the most important philosophical question of them all: How ought one to live?
What about “these units then become meaning generators at a higher scale of organization, that is, on a cultural level” in the world of conflicting goods?
Question of the Month
How Does Language Work?
Philosophy Now Magazine
Maurice John Fryatt, Scarborough, Ontario
Speech acts. How to pin down the definition and the meaning of that “technically”.
Right?
And then to take this out into the world of human interactions that revolve around the question, “how ought one to live?”
For me, I’ll accept whatever others think a “speech act” is epistemologically as long as they are willing to take that out into the is/ought world and discuss it given the main components of my own speech acts: identity, value judgments and political economy.
One thing seems certain: in the act of speaking the words that come out of our mouths go into the ears of others [who are not deaf] and then any number of actual behaviors producing any number of actual consequences are possible. The human condition as it were.
But sure the technical stuff:
Yes, and there is not likely to be much disagreement among us about it. There are rules that have been established over hundreds [sometimes thousands] of years within communities that share the same language. But if instead of foxes chasing dogs or dogs chasing foxes we have people shooting foxes or eating dogs – South Koreans eat over 2 million dogs a year – it’s not the syntax that is likely to mar our communication.
Actually, the finality revolves more around establishing satisfaction between those who utter words and those who hear them. But that’s where my own frame of mind here comes into play.