Wittgenstein argued that a purely private language—one whose words refer only to private mental contents knowable only to the speaker—is logically impossible. For a word to have meaning, it must be rule-governed and checkable; but if a sensation exists only in my mind, I have no independent way to check whether I'm using the word correctly. Without public criteria of correctness, there is no genuine rule-following, and therefore no genuine language.
Trace the argument carefully: rule-following requires criteria of correctness, private sensations lack such criteria, therefore private language is impossible. Then explore responses that deny premises or distinguish sensations from languages.
Wittgenstein denies private experience—he denies only that experience can be the meaning of words. The argument is obviously wrong—it remains contested; many semanticists engage seriously with its implications.
From your study of Wittgenstein's language games, you know that meaning is not a private mental act of intending or picturing — it is located in the shared practices and forms of life within which words are used. The private language argument takes this insight and draws its most radical consequence: a language in principle accessible only to a single speaker — one whose words refer to that speaker's private inner sensations — is not a possible language at all. This is not an empirical claim about how languages actually develop; it is a conceptual claim about what language requires.
The argument turns on the concept of rule-following. For a word to have meaning, it must be governed by a rule that determines correct and incorrect applications. If I introduce the sign "S" to record whenever I have a particular sensation, what makes future applications of "S" correct or incorrect? Wittgenstein's key move is to note that a private sensation cannot serve as a standard of correctness, because whatever seems correct to me *will seem* correct to me — I have no independent check. "Whatever is going to seem right to me is right. And that only means that here we can't talk about 'right.'" Without the possibility of error, there is no genuine rule; without a genuine rule, there is no genuine meaning — only the feeling that there is meaning.
This connects to the beetle-in-a-box thought experiment. Imagine everyone has a box with something in it called "a beetle," but no one can look in anyone else's box, and everyone knows "beetle" only from their own case. Wittgenstein's point is that even if everyone has something in the box, or if the contents vary, or if the box is empty — it makes no difference to the use of the word "beetle" in the language. The private object "cancels out" of the grammar. The word gets its meaning from the public practice of using it, not from the private item it supposedly names. Applied to sensation words like "pain": what makes "pain" mean what it does is not your private inner state but the public criteria of pain behavior, circumstances of injury, expressions, and responses that constitute the language game.
The argument does not deny that you have experiences. It denies that your private experience can be *what the word means*. When you say "I'm in pain," the word "pain" means what it does because of the surrounding public practices — not because you've successfully pointed inward at a private datum. This is why the misconception "Wittgenstein denies inner experience" is worth resisting: he is making a point about semantics, not phenomenology. The inner experience may well occur; the argument is that it cannot be the semantic anchor for the word.
The implications are significant for philosophy of mind and epistemology. If mental vocabulary is anchored in public criteria, then the Cartesian picture of inner objects that are perfectly known to the subject and unknown to others becomes deeply problematic. Not because we doubt that others have inner lives, but because the very grammar of our mental vocabulary is woven from public practice. This lays groundwork for the externalist semantics you'll encounter in the twin-earth thought experiment: where a word's meaning is determined not by what is in the head, but by the environment, community, and causal history surrounding the speaker.
Topics in reflective domains aren't scored by quiz answers. Read, reflect, and mark when you've thought it through.