This is a rather good primer on the private language argument.

It presents the key ideas and concepts in a way that is relatively easy to understand and absorb.

The author does a nice job of breaking down the complex topic into more manageable parts.

Even for those who may not have a deep background in philosophy, this primer provides a solid foundation for further exploration.

The language used is clear and concise, making it accessible to a wide range of readers.

Overall, I think it's a very useful resource for anyone interested in learning about the private language argument.

It offers a good starting point and can help激发 further思考 and discussion on this fascinating topic.

I would highly recommend it to anyone looking to gain a better understanding of this important philosophical debate.

The type of book that I never expected to understand, but here we are.

This particular book has presented me with numerous challenges. Its complex language and convoluted plot have left me scratching my head on many occasions.

However, as I persevere through the pages, I find myself gradually uncovering hidden meanings and connections.

It's as if the book is slowly revealing its secrets to me, one by one.

I have come to realize that sometimes, the books that seem the most difficult to understand are the ones that offer the greatest rewards.

They force us to think deeply, expand our knowledge, and view the world from different perspectives.

So, although I initially thought I would never be able to make sense of this book, I am now determined to see it through to the end and discover all that it has to offer.

Stupid! I truly hate Wittgenstein. He is a fraud, and I despise him with a passion. It seems that this is the only redeemable writing about him that manages to make anything regarding his thought even somewhat interesting. Wittgenstein's ideas have always left me cold and unimpressed. I find his work to be convoluted and lacking in real substance. His so-called philosophy appears to be more of a smoke and mirrors act, designed to迷惑 and confuse rather than enlighten. I have tried to understand his concepts, but time and time again, I have been left frustrated and angry. I firmly believe that he is overrated and that his reputation is based on nothing more than hype and false pretenses.

The beginning was truly wonderful and everything seemed to be going extremely well.

It was filled with excitement and great promise.

However, as time passed, it very quickly fell into mediocrity.

The initial sparkle and shine gradually dimmed, and it became just another ordinary thing.

There was a lack of innovation and the ability to maintain the high standards that were set at the start.

It seemed as if the momentum could not be sustained, and it ended up being rather unremarkable.

This is a common occurrence in many endeavors, where the initial enthusiasm and potential are not fully realized, leading to a disappointing outcome.

It serves as a reminder that in order to achieve long-term success, one must continuously strive for improvement and avoid complacency.

This work is truly magnificent. It not only takes a significant step beyond Hume but also extends the problem of induction into the realms of linguistics and the philosophy of language.

Suppose you have been engrossed in reading Hume, yet there is still a lingering sense of the low-road aspects of the work that the Analytics have brought to the back of your mind. In such a case, this particular work is bound to send little shivers of clarity through you. It has the power to glue together your mental framework, providing a more comprehensive and coherent understanding.

It delves deep into the complex relationship between induction, language, and philosophy, offering new perspectives and insights that can transform the way you think about these fundamental concepts.

Whether you are a scholar or simply an enthusiast interested in these fields, this work is sure to have a profound impact on your intellectual journey.

Just read this for the second or perhaps third time, and this time I followed the arguments much better than before, and I liked it even more. It really made sense of the PLA for me.

I understand that it's a controversial reading of it, but it's one that I find quite congenial anyway. Leaving aside the labelling as sceptical, it may be a formally sceptical position, but the dismissal of the quest for truth-conditions and facts of the matter in favour of forms of life (that, in many cases, work) seems both rigorously argued and a plausible account of, to put it crudely, how things actually work.

Regardless of whether it represents SK's or LW/PI's actual positions (if indeed it even makes sense to debate such an ascription). The 'other minds' postscript, which sketches an extension of the argument, seems highly relevant to the current resurgence of mainly empty discussions about AI. Or at least those that touch on questions like 'can machines really be intelligent' and all that confused stuff.

It provides a different perspective and perhaps a more fruitful way of thinking about these issues, rather than getting bogged down in the same old debates that often lead nowhere.

If you have delved into _Philosophical Investigations_, then this subsequent reading is a must.

It truly performs a remarkable task of explicating Wittgenstein's profound arguments.

The text offers a detailed and in-depth exploration of the complex ideas presented by Wittgenstein.

It carefully dissects each argument, providing clear explanations and examples to enhance understanding.

By reading this, you will gain a more comprehensive and nuanced perspective on Wittgenstein's philosophy.

It serves as an excellent companion piece to _Philosophical Investigations_, further enriching your intellectual journey into the world of philosophy.

Whether you are a seasoned philosopher or a novice enthusiast, this work is sure to offer valuable insights and deepen your appreciation for Wittgenstein's contributions to the field.

Tough-going but not unrewarding.

The frequent and lengthy footnotes did not contribute to clarity. Some of them extended over a page and a half.

The main thread was already difficult enough to follow, even without all the smaller-font twists and turns and afterthoughts. I believe these were added to embellish an earlier version of the text.

I was relieved when I reached the end, but alas, my relief was somewhat tempered by the knowledge that I'll have to read it all again. I need to try to understand at least some of what I didn't grasp the first time.

The word 'Elementary' in the subtitle seems to add salt to the wound, making it even more frustrating.

Overall, it was a challenging read, but perhaps with a second reading, I'll be able to extract more value from it.

Technical comment:

At least based on the information presented on the book's copyright page, it was released in softcover in 1982, not 1984. Interestingly, the 1982 softcover edition features a pink cover.

Edit: Additionally, it has 150 pages including the index and a green cover. The copyright belongs to the author. It could potentially be a limited run.

It was purchased for a class that he taught at Princeton, if I recall correctly. Or perhaps that was the case for "Naming and Necessity" and I'm getting them mixed up.

Overall, these details about the book's publication and characteristics add to the understanding of its history and significance.

Further research might be needed to clarify any uncertainties and to fully explore the context in which this book was produced and used.

First, I have completed the reading.

Now, before getting back to it, I will engage in more in-depth analysis of philosophy.

Philosophy is a profound and complex discipline that explores fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, and more.

By delving deeper into philosophical concepts and theories, I hope to gain a better understanding of the subject matter and be able to approach it from different perspectives.

This will not only enhance my knowledge but also improve my critical thinking and analytical skills.

I will explore various philosophical schools of thought, such as empiricism, rationalism, and existentialism, and analyze their strengths and weaknesses.

I will also examine how different philosophers have approached similar questions and how their ideas have evolved over time.

Overall, this process of analyzing philosophy will help me to better appreciate its significance and relevance in our lives.

It will also prepare me to engage in more meaningful discussions and debates about philosophical issues in the future.

I absolutely love reading Kripke. His works are super clear and easy to understand. It's like he has this magical ability to present complex philosophical ideas in a way that even a novice like me can follow.

Every time I pick up one of his books or papers, I feel like I'm embarking on an exciting intellectual journey. His arguments are so well-structured and his reasoning is so precise that it's hard not to be convinced by his ideas.

Whether it's his thoughts on modal logic, names and necessity, or other areas of philosophy, Kripke always manages to offer unique and thought-provoking perspectives. I can't wait to explore more of his works and continue learning from his brilliant mind.

An interesting argument indeed.

However, I largely find myself in agreement with the critiques that Larmore presented in class.

This particular argument doesn't seem to be a truly fair interpretation of LW.

Moreover, it doesn't offer a great solution either.

That being said, it does perform a good service in explicating the problem that LW was attempting to dismiss.

By making the connection between the two, it provides further understanding of both the skeptical problem itself and LW's thought.

This additional layer of understanding can be valuable in exploring the complex issues at hand.

It allows us to see the different perspectives and approaches, and perhaps even启发 new ideas and solutions.

Overall, while the argument has its flaws, it still has something to contribute to the ongoing discussion.