Starting question
Starting question
Then
Answer
The Illusion of the Secret Dictionary
No source links recorded for this answer.
Imagine you wake up one morning with a strange, never-before-felt tingling in your left elbow. You decide to name this sensation "Glip." Since no one else can feel your elbow, you believe you have created a private word that only you truly understand. However, the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein argues that by tomorrow, you won't even know if you are using the word "Glip" correctly. In fact, he argues that a language that is truly private is not just difficult—it is impossible.
## The Problem of Rule-Following
[Ludwig Wittgenstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein) was a 20th-century philosopher who changed how we look at the "tools" of speech. In his book, [*Philosophical Investigations*](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/), he challenges the idea that language starts inside our heads.
His Private Language Argument (PLA) focuses on a person keeping a diary of a recurring sensation and marking it with the sign "S." Wittgenstein points out a fatal flaw: if "S" refers to something only I can experience, I have no way to check if I am applying the label correctly the next time I feel it. I have no "yardstick" outside of my own memory.
> "A main source of our failure to understand is that we do not command a clear view of the use of our words. — Our grammar is lacking in this sort of perspicuity." (Wittgenstein, *Philosophical Investigations*, §122)
In a public language, if I call a "cat" a "dog," someone can correct me. But in a private language, Wittgenstein notes that "whatever is going to seem right to me is right. And that only means that here we can't talk about 'right'." Without a social check, the word "Glip" loses its meaning entirely.
## The Beetle in the Box
To make this clearer, Wittgenstein offers a famous thought experiment called the **Beetle in the Box**. Imagine everyone has a small box. Everyone says there is a "beetle" in their box, but no one can ever look into anyone else’s box.
If the word "beetle" has a use in these people's language, it cannot be the name of the *thing* in the box. Why? Because the thing in your box might be a marble, or a piece of dust, or your box might even be empty! The "thing" inside doesn't matter for the word to function. Instead, the word "beetle" gets its meaning from how the community uses it in their shared "language-games"—the social rules and activities we engage in together.
## Why This Matters
Wittgenstein is suggesting that our most "inner" thoughts are actually built on "outer" social foundations. Language isn't a bridge between two isolated islands; it is the ocean that connects us. If we didn't share a public world, we couldn't even have a private conversation with ourselves.
### Further Exploration
- **The Limits of Experience:** If Wittgenstein is right, can we ever truly describe a unique emotion to someone else, or are we always just using "public templates"?
- **Artificial Intelligence:** Does a Large Language Model (LLM) "understand" language if it has no social world or physical sensations to ground its words?
- **Solipsism:** How does the Private Language Argument challenge the idea that "I am the only mind that exists"?
Select text to highlight passages.
Then
Question
how did quine build on the argument in the meaning of meaning?
Select text to highlight passages.
Then
Answer
The Myth of the Mental Museum
No source links recorded for this answer.
If Wittgenstein slammed the door on the idea of a "private" dictionary, the American philosopher [W.V.O. Quine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine) set the entire library on fire. While Wittgenstein argued that you can't have a private language because you lack a social "yardstick," Quine took this further in his landmark book, [*Word and Object*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_and_Object). He argued that even our shared, public language is far more unstable than we realize.
## The Gavagai Problem
Imagine you are an explorer visiting a culture whose language is completely unrelated to your own. A rabbit scurries past, and a local points and says, **"Gavagai!"** You naturally write in your notebook: *Gavagai = Rabbit*.
Quine argues that you have jumped to a conclusion you can never actually prove. How do you know "Gavagai" doesn't actually mean "undetached rabbit parts," "a fleeting instance of rabbit-ness," or even "dinner is running"?
Even if you spend twenty years with this tribe, you can never climb inside their heads to see which concept they are using. This is known as the **Indeterminacy of Translation**. If Wittgenstein showed that meaning isn't *private*, Quine showed that meaning isn't a fixed *object* at all.
> "There is no such thing as the 'meaning' of a word, if by that we mean some mental entity that stays the same when we translate it." — W.V.O. Quine, [*Word and Object*](https://mitpress.mit.edu/9.780262518314/word-and-object/)
## Destroying the "Museum" View
Quine famously attacked the "Museum View of Meaning," which is the common-sense idea that our minds are like galleries where "meanings" are the exhibits and "words" are just the labels stuck on the frames.
Building on Wittgenstein’s social focus, Quine insisted that language is a **disposition to behave**. To know what a word means is simply to know how to react in specific situations. There is no "hidden treasure" of meaning inside the speaker’s mind that a translator could eventually uncover. If two different translations of "Gavagai" both fit the speaker's behavior, then *both* are equally "correct," even if they point to different realities.
## The Web of Belief
Quine’s most radical addition to the "meaning of meaning" is [Holism](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meaning-holism/). He argued that no single word or sentence has meaning in isolation. Instead, our language is like a vast **Web of Belief**.
- If you change the meaning of "rabbit," it ripples through your understanding of "biology," "food," and "nature."
- Because our words are all interconnected, you cannot verify a single word’s meaning by just looking at one object (like a rabbit).
By connecting Wittgenstein’s social rules to this "web," Quine suggests that we aren't just sharing a language; we are sharing a massive, fragile structure of assumptions. We don't understand each other because we share the same "mental pictures," but because we have coordinated our behaviors well enough to survive together in the same world.
Select text to highlight passages.
Continue this thread
This path ends here for now.
If you want to keep exploring this line of thought, open the editor and add the next question or answer from this endpoint.
Continue this thread in the editor on desktop.
Other paths you could read
Earlier, at how did quine build on the argument in the meaning of meaning?, the conversation split. If this is not the thread you want, you can switch to the other path below.
Highlights
0 saved passages and connected ideas
No highlights yet
Select text to save it here.