Wittgenstein's Private Language Argument And Its Practical Applications

[Ichneumonwasp]

Good point.........

My point however is that Wittgenstein really tried to AVOID physiology. And, in a sense, that is a good principle when dealing with this type of thing, this type of "Philosophical Investigation". We cannot assume anything. Fundamentals are paramount. No theories, just straight forward observation with common sense applied to the "interpretation", which may be even too strong a word.

With Wittgenstein we want to let things be as much as possible.

One man's fundamental may be another man's elaboration. From one perspective the physiology is the most fundamental level, even though it is a constructed model also based in a language game.

 

[Patrick1000]

A bewildering hall of mirrors........

One man's fundamental may be another man's elaboration. From one perspective the physiology is the most fundamental level, even though it is a constructed model also based in a language game.

For me, Wittgenstein's world is that of the ol' cliche'd bewildering hall of mirrors at times. I can't help but "default" to my physiologic thinking at times, but Wittgenstein seems so GROUNDED in his ignoring so much of what we others assume, ignoring what typically day to day most grounds the rest of us. He is simultaneously marvelous, magnificent, breathtaking, beautiful, frustrating, maddening and simply hard to hang with in his refusal to assume the obvious, and then, almost mystically, you say to yourself, "Heck! I get it! The NUT IS RIGHT!!! I really wasn't entitled to assume that to begin with after all anyway, was I now?".

I love Wittgenstein. If I hang with him, he helps me let go of the "obvious". And getting on the other side of the obvious is the most interesting place one can find oneself to be.

 

[Patrick1000]

HikakaGirl, is there anything objective as regards Kant's "thing in itself"....

Well, this may not be exactly what you are asking for, but I think it definitely addresses the question in an indirect but very powerful way. The way I'm reading your post is that you are asking for examples of philosophers whose discussions have generated scientifically testable and/or practically useful concepts, processes, etc. There have been many philosophers of science, and I think the one-two punch of Kant and Popper laid some heavy duty foundations for practical processes in the study of science, which in turn have lead to innumerable discoveries with theoretical and practical implications.

Briefly, Kant laid the ground work for Popper with the distinction of a "thing in itself" versus the "object of perception".

Popper then took this and proposed that there were "three worlds" -- physical reality (Kant's "thing in itself"), sensational phenomena (sensory input), and mental constructs (things [concepts] built on sensory perceptions). These three worlds have become the cornerstones for establishing what is known as construct validity within the social sciences (this is my background, I can't speak for other areas, but Popper is/was very influential). That is, the connections between how we describe something, how we measure it, and it's presence in the real world. Construct validity is a methodology by which we attempt, as best we can, to make sure that our concepts of things -- constructs, like the example of pain you use in your follow-on post -- match up with reality, and further that we can measure that construct with a certain amount of accuracy. I'm sort of paraphrasing here, I'll admit, for the sake of explanation. It's a serious endeavor for social scientists, because we study things that are often times not very concrete or easily described. We need to establish that we're talking about a phenomenon that is real and that it is indeed measurable and replicable. At any rate, the process is definitely not perfect, and there are certainly some things that we are able to get a very good handle on describing, measuring and determining the reality of the phenomenon (fairness), and some things we struggle with (pain).

So Popper's "result", that is, the establishment of the concept of what we know as construct validity, is itself a process by which we have generated many, many other "results" in the social sciences, which in turn have very real practical implications.

Really interesting question! I'm looking forward to reading others' responses.

HG

HikakaGirl, is there anything objective to say as regards Kant's "thing in itself"....

Is it anything at all if it is not accessible? Does it mean anything at all if it is not accessible?