We use language to express thoughts and express thoughts. But what can we express appropriately through language. Is conventional language helpful enough to express our thoughts? Many people consider language as a fundamental thing. Because accepting verbal words as an appropriate statement of a word is nothing more than a basic belief. Whitehead thinks that verbal phrases or language are not the proper expression of our minds at all. Moreover the general use of language cannot express the depths of metaphysics. Using metaphysical language in conventional life, the prophetic philosophers have created various paradoxes and confusions. Language is often flawed due to ambiguity. Inconsistency
A fault of language. Many times we use symbols to make the meaning of the language clear and ore. There is no logical coherence in the language, so many people do not think that there is any clear meaning in the language consisting of words. Inconsistency obscures the meaning of language. And those who think that analysis is the only means of overcoming obscurity in the real proposition give themselves a false consolation. Analysis can make sense of the semantic knowledge of words. The main function of contemporary philosophy is to analyze the judgment of language. According to most philosophers, the main function of philosophy should be to analyze the logical judgment of language. But why the expression in language?
Language requires communication and communication requires information and information needs to know. Is this knowledge at all knowledge, intellectual animal man. The mind possessing wisdom. This knowledge can be called knowledge. It is in the realm of philosophy that the constant intellectual endeavor centered on language with the content of this cause. If knowledge is knowledge, then Socrates also knew nothing, so he wandered around in search of truth. But why is he the father of our knowledge? So knowledge, not knowledge, which has become the truth for the time being, knowledge is the truth which has been proved for the time being, which man arranges in the chain of his life. According to Roderick M. Chisholm- Knowledge is justified truth belief. . But what about worldly questions about belief?
One of the suffixes of the truths and logical truths derived from wisdom in epistemology is the psychological which is the linguistic element. The way in which people think and apply it for guidance is basically based on language and writing through letters or symbols basically presents the problem of pre-perfect speech.
Wittgenstein said that this is a kind of family reasoning decision which has been identified as private language. Solipsist claims that private language is a language that describes his past experiences, present and future experiences. But some people who are aware of some of the private language may not know. Because the term I get through experience means the speaker's private. Wittgenstein strongly argues that such a private language is impossible. Solipsist-- their knowledge is limited to that gained through their own experience. There can be no such language. Which is determined by personal experience. The person may feel that he or she will be able to make a decision on the utter word or utterance if he or she experiences such a sensation at a later time. Which of the following is exactly the same as the sensation selected or determined as a sensation rule? In this case we can compare the current sensation with the memory of the previous sensation - but how can it be said that human balance will not be wrong or misleading? The solipsist or new sensation seems to resemble the previous sensation, basically it does not resemble with fact if there is an objective.
The interpretation of the Private language argument is highly contentious. I shall be with an account due, in the main, to soul.
-Kripke-1981
Rule and objectivity should be considered as non-meaningful interpretation of kripe about private language argument.
A paradox can be discussed considering the special case of Solipsism Sensation. If we take a mathematical result as an example
If I know about n + 2 rule then 0,1,2,3,4,5 ......? The sequence is Objective correct and 0, 2, 1, 5, 6, 3 ......? Objective incorrect How can I say wrong if someone does not accept the next sequence. When a person guesses or assumes that the rule is correct, he maintains the continuity, and here the formula is continuous.
Wow