Abstract
The refuting of private language is one of the important ideas of later Wittgenstein; a language whose words are only known for its user. To justify impossibility of the private language, Wittgenstein in his diary argument shows that it is impossible for a person to name one of his own sensations ...
Read More
Abstract
The refuting of private language is one of the important ideas of later Wittgenstein; a language whose words are only known for its user. To justify impossibility of the private language, Wittgenstein in his diary argument shows that it is impossible for a person to name one of his own sensations by using a sign like “S” and to write it in his diary and then he cannot register its repetition in his diary. There are many interpretations of this argument. Some consider it as an argument against the validity of memory and some others consider it as an emphasis on the necessity of rules for using the words in a language. Skepticism in the validity of memory sometime is related to the ability of memory in keeping the first sensation and sometime is related to the ability of memory in correct remembering of using of a sign in the past. The commentators mostly accepted the first part and according to their view, since there is no objective criterion for assessment of use of a sign, the possibility of assessing the correctness of memory function in private language is denied. In this article, some interpretations of diarist argument are investigated.
�Q�ҁQ�ӁQ�ӁQ�ӁQ�ӀQ�ӁR�ӀR�ӀQ�ӀQ�ҁQ�ҀQ�ӀQ�یشتر شق نخست را برگرفتند و به هر حال امکان احراز درستی عملکرد حافظه را در زبان خصوصی به این دلیل منتفی دانستند که معیاری عینی برای بازسنجی کاربردهای یک نشانه وجود ندارد. در این مقاله برخی تفاسیر از استدلال خاطرهنویس بررسی شدهاست.
