Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Wittgenstein's private language argument implies that qualia concepts derive their meaning from public, interpersonal linguistic practices.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Qualia have intrinsic phenomenal properties independent of how we linguistically express or communicate them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The argument conflates the privacy of subjective experience with the privacy of language; private experience doesn't entail private meaning.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Public criteria may constrain quale-talk without grounding quale-concepts; internal ostensive definition can still succeed.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Wittgenstein argues we cannot privately ostensively define sensations; meaning requires public criteria of correctness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If qualia meanings were private, we'd have no way to distinguish genuine memory of a quale from false memory.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Public language provides behavioral criteria that ground quale-terms in interpersonal practice, making them intelligible.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.