1 it wrongly on some occasion? Mustn't I say he was mistaken?” Why should I say this & not rather, he has forgotten the meanings of his words.

  But after all only I can lastly decide whether what he said, is right. “We can't assume that he knows what I see & I don't!” We can abs. do this!

Can a man doubt whether what he sees is red or green? [Elaborate this]

  “Shurely if he
anything he must know that he sees!” – It is true that the game of “showing ˇor telling what one sees” is one of the most fundamental language games, which means that what we in ordinary life call using language mostly presuposes this game.

  I can for what I see 1 use the impersonal form of description & the fact that I say “for what I see” doesn't say at all that after all this is only a disguised personal description! For I just expressed my self myself in
ordinary form of expression.

  Ist ein Würfel ein äußerst regelmäßiger symmetrischer Körper, oder das Unregelmäßige was ich sehe, wenn ich ihn von einer Kant Ecke aus sehe? Was soll ich hervorheben? Soll ich sagen er sei primär unregelmäßig aber man könne ihn als etwas Regelmäßiges unregelmäßig projiziert darstellen, oder er sei primär regelmäßig sei aber unregelmäßig projiziert gesehen?

What's the difference between me being angry and some he being angry?

If I wish to write down my experiences the two experiences that I am angry & that he is angry are absolutely entirely different (although the words used to describe them are very similar. I might therefore naturally objec[k|t]t to this way of expression.

  “Ein Würfel hat 9 reelle Kanten & 3 imaginäre.”

  If I write down my own experiences nothing is more natural than to refer [to|by] ‘I’ only to my
or L.W.'s body
as opposed to other bodies, but not to to distinguish my toothache from his by the words I & he.

The usual game ˇplayed with the word ‘toothache’ involves the distinction of bodies which have the toothache.

 Does the solipsist ˇalso say that only he can play chess?

 But he will say that behind the sentence ‘I see … ’ when he says it & it's true there stands something which does not stand behind “he sees” or ‘I see’ when the other man sais it

  I'll start with a description of what ‘I see’ but in impersonal form

‘Ich spreche’ & ‘der Andere spricht’ sind zwei
total verschiedene Erfahrungen.

  Ich sage “Es ist schön”, dann sage ich “das habe ich gesprochen”. Damit habe ich weder mir noch dem Andern gesagt wer es gesprochen hat. Ich habe einen gezeigt[,|.] weil es nicht

“Aber woher weiß ich daß ich gesprochen habe wenn nicht aus der eigentümlichen motorischen Erfahrung des Selbst [s|S]prechens.

  Das Wort ‘Ich’ bezeichnet keine Person.

  Remember that, whatever the word ‘I’ means to you, to the other man it
draws his attention to
a human body & is of no value otherwise.
Hat es einen Sinn zu sagen, der Stern bleibt beim gleichen Punkt?

  I could write say a tex book on Physics in which every sentence starts with “I remember”.
  Could one say: Here the sentences are all directly backed by ˇreal experiences or by primary reality.
     We must make be mislead in a queer way!

  “Surely”, I want to say, “if I'm ˇto be really quite frank I must say that I have something which nobody has”. – But who's I? – Hell! I don't express myself properly but there's something you can't deny that there is my personal experience & that this in a most important sense has no neighbour. – But you don't mean by that that it happens to be alone but that it's grammatical position is that of having no neighbour.
     “But somehow our language doesn't B bring it out, that there is something unique namely real present experience, & do you just wish to advise me to resign myself to that?”

  [A philosophical book might be entitled
“the wonders of the jungle”.]

(Funny that in ordinary life we never feel that we have to resign ourselves to something by using ordinary language!)

  How is it that the Auszeichnung
might propose for those sentences which describe my own personal experience does do not really quite satisfy [us|me]?

Partly because of what we call “imagining that the other person sees (feels pain etc.)”
  D.h. wir sind geneigt dasselbe Bild für ◇◇◇ Vorgänge zu verwenden.

Now imagine this: as soon as he ⇄ even has learnt enought ˇof language to 1
express it
be able tosay so
he tells us that he saw blue when he said is not ⇄ red.

This sounds as if then we really ought to be convinced that he saw blue etc.

The person who paints his memories.

¥     It reminds ˇone misleadingly of: “as soon as even
he had learnt enough of their language the stranger informed his hosts of …

Augustin, about expressing what the wishes inside him.

Why shouldn't we consider ˇthe case that the child learns to think & always dreams that it had a private language before it learnt ours.
    Only: What do we mean by learning the language? In what sense can we be said to teach the child the natural gesture-language? Or can't we teach him that?

Can't the child learn to wish for an apple by learning to draw an apple?

  Kreis & Elipse. Soll ich sagen: “er hat der Kreis gestern als Elipse gesehen”, oder so stellt er den folgenden Tag einen Kreis dar”.

   [Sich daran erinnern das & das gedacht zu haben. “Ich erinnere mich nicht an ihn aber ich
erinnere mich
daß er mir einen dümmlichen Eindruck gemacht hat”]

“He mostly sees red where we see red”

The normal use of the expression “he sees green where … ” ist this: We take it as the criterium for that my ◇◇◇ meaning the same by ‘red’ as
we do
the other people
that ˇas a rule I he argues with
in giving the same names to the colours of objectss as
do. If then in a particular instant he says something is red when we should say that it's green we say that he sees it different from us.
   Notice how in such a case we would behave. We should look for a cause of his differing judgement & if we had found one we should certainly be inclined to say he saw red when we saw green.

  It is further [k|c]lear that even before ever finding such a cause we might under circumstances be inclined to say this. But also that we can't give a strict rule for … .

N Consider now this case: Someone says I remember ˇyesterday having seen everything red green & vice versa.
  Consider this case: someone sais
I can't underst.
it's queer
I see everything red
today & vice versa. We answer: it must look queer! He sais it does & e.g. goes on to say ho cold the glowing cole looks & how warm the clear (blue) sky. I think we should under these or similar circumst. be incl. to say that he saw red what we saw green. And again we should say that we know that he means by the words blue & red what we do as he has always used them as we

On the other hand: Someone tels us today that yesterday he always saw everything red, blue and s.o.. We say it must have We say: But you called the glowing coal red you know & the sky blue. He answers: That was because I had also
changed the names. We say: But didn't it feel very queer & he says: No it seemed all perfectly
. Would we in this case too say: … ?

Suppose Case of contradictory memory images. tomorrow he remembers this, the day after tomorrow something else.

 The whole trend, to show that the expression “letting one look into his soul” is ˇoften misleading.

Back to the example of the afterimages or № 1. We can say that these cases are not cases of ˇcommunic. of personal exp. if there were no pers. exp. but only ‘the outward signs’?

Now I ask what are our criteria for there being or there having been a pers. exp. besides the expression? And here the answer seems to be that for the outsider // the other man // the criteria are indeed more outside expressions, but that I myself know whether I have an experience or not in par-
ticular whether I see red or not.

  But let me ask what is knowing that I see red like. I mean: look at something red ‘know that it is red’ &
// mark //
yourself what you're doing. Don't you mean seeing red & impressing it on your mind that you are doing so? But there are, I suppose, several things that you are doing: You probably say to yourself the word ‘red’ or ‘this is red’ or something of the sort, or perhaps glance from the red object to another red one which you're taking to be the paradigme of red & such like. On the other hand you just intently stare at the red thing.

of their uses the
‘visual image’ & ‘picture’ run parallel but where where they don't the analogy which does exists tends to delude us.
  The grammar of ‘seeing red’ connected to the expression of seeing red closer than one thinks.

 “You talk as though one
see a red patch without if one
that one does; as As if seeing something was saying that one sees it”.
 “Seeing something” of course doesn't mean the same as saying that one sees something but the senses of these expressions are closer related than it might appear to you.
    We say a blind man does not see anything. But not only do we say so but he too sais that he does not see. I don't mean “he agrees with us that he does not see”, “he does not dispute it”, but rather, he too describes the facts in this way having learnt the same language as we have. Now whome do we call blind, what is our criterium for blindness? A certain kind of behaviour. And if
person behaves in that particular way we not only call him blind but teach him to call himself blind. And in this sense his behaviour also determines the meaning of blindness for him. But now you will say: “Surely blindness isn't just a behaviour; it's clear that an man can behave like a blind man & not be blind. Therefore ‘blindness’ means something different: in fact something this behaviour only helps him
to understand what we mean by ‘blindness’. The outward circumstances are what both we & ⇄ he know. Whenever he behaves in a certain way we say ˇthat he sees nothing & he notices that a certain private experience of his coincides with all these cases &
so concludes
thereby knows
that we mean this experience of his by saying that he sees nothing”.
    The idea is that we teach a
the meaning of expressions relating to personal experiences indirectely. – Such an indirect mode of teaching we could imagine as follows. № ) We I teach a child the names of colours & a game, say, of bringing objects of a certain colour if when the ‘name of the colour’ is called out. I We don't however teach him the colournames by pointing to a sample which we both see // which both of us see // which I & he see saying ˇe.g. the word ‘red’. but Instead we let him look at a white wall sheet of paper through
a pair of
spectacles which if we look through them make us see the paper red & we say the word ‘red’ whenever we put these spectacles on his nose.
I have various spectacles each of which when
look through it makes
see the ˇwhite paper in a different colour. These spectacles are also distinguished by their
outside apearance the red one ˇthat makes me see red has
the green
one eliptical ones [I|We] now teach the child in this way that when I see it looking through the putting the
ones on his nose I say the word ‘red’, etc. when the eliptical ones ‘green’ & so forth. This one might call teaching the child the ˇmeanings of the colournames in an indirect way because I one could
in this case
say that I led the child to correlate the word red with something that I didn't see but hoped the child would see if it looked through the circular glasses. And this way is indire[k|c]t as opposed to the dire[k|c]t way of pointing to a red object etc..

   [mid reading]

 From this it should follow that we sometimes rightly sometimes wrongly teach a man to say that he is blind: For what if he saw all the time but nevertheless behaved ˇexactly like a blind man? – Or should we say: “Nature wouldn't play such a trick on us!”.
    We can see here that we don't quite
understand the real use of the
“to see something” or “to see nothing”.

    And what is so misleading to us about when we consider this use is the following: We say “Surely we can see something without ever saying or showing that we do & on the other hand we can say that we see so & so without seeing it, therefore seeing is one process & expressing that we see an other, & all they have to do with each other is that they sometimes coincide; they have the same connection as being red & being sweet. Sometimes what is red is sweet, etc.”
 Now this is obviously not quite true & not quite false. It seems we somehow that we look at the use of these words with some prejudice.
It is clear that we in our language use the
‘seeing red’ in such 1 a way that we can say “he A sees … red, but doesn't show it” on the other hand it is easy to see that we would have no use for these words if their application was severed from the criteria which in of behaviour, that is to say, to the language game which we play with these words it is, both, essential that the people who play it (should) behave in the particular way we call
saying, showing
they see, & also that
under certain circumstances
they should ˇmore or less or entirely conceal what they see.
  Balance: The point of the game depends upon what usually happens.
    Point of a game
How does he know that he
has the visual image
red i.e. how does he connect ˇthe word ‘red’ with ‘a particular colour? In fact what does the expression ‘a particular’ here mean. What is the criterium for his connecting
the word
always to the same
? Is it not often just that he calls it red?

But doesn't then the word “seeing red” mean to me a
certain (private) experience
particular process
fact in the realm of primary experience
(mental) event

which surely is utterly different from saying certain words?

    In fact if he spi is to play a lang. games the possibility of this will depend upon his own & the other people's reactions. For The game depends upon the agreement of these reactions i.e. they must
the same things ‘red’.
     “But s if he speaks to himself surely this is different. For then he needn't consult other people's reactions &
he just gives the name
the same colour
as that
which he called
gave it
on previous occasions.
in previous cases.
on a previous occasion.
But how does he know that it is the same colour. Does he also recognize the sameness ˇof colour as what he used to call sameness of colour & so on ad inf.? It is quite true he
, in agreement with ordinary use, the word ‘red’ & ˇthe same colour such that he would not say that he saw now the colour he had seen before that that colour is red but that what he sees now is not red etc.
   It is quite true, he connects the word & the exp..

          The words “‘seeing red’ means a part experience” are [useless| senseless] unless we can follow them up by: ‘namely this → (pointing)’. Or else they may say experience as opposed to phys. obj., but then this is grammar.

But I could use language just for making entries in my diary & without even having learnt it I could have invented a name for
the particular
colour sensation say the name ‘red’ & then used this name to write down whenever I had that
colour sensation. That means, you (would) play a private language game with yourself. But let's see, how are we to describe this game?

When you say “the expression ‘‒ ‒ ‒’ means to you a certain private exp.” you are (indeed) supplementing this ˇstatement by imagining a red colour, ˇor looking at a red object, or such like (which supply the ‘namely this’) but how do you make
make use of
the expression & the experience you ˇthus connect with it? For how you say what we call the meaning of the word lies in the game we play with it.

 But it seems too me that I either see red or don't see red. Whether I
it or not.
       Picture we use here
     This picture not questioned but its application.
      Other cases of tautologies.

 “Surely seeing is one thing, & showing that I see is another thing”. – This certainly, is like saying “skipping is one thing &
jumping another”. But here there is a suplement to this statement & we can say “skipping is this (showing it) & jumping this (showing it)”. Now how about this supplement in the first case? “Seeing ˇred is this (showing it) & showing that we see ˇred, this( (showing it)” The point is just that there isn't a ‘showing that I see’ except t showing that I see. “But can't I say: seeing red is what I'm doing now” (looking at something red)? And although in a sense the other man can't directly
be aware of the acting or activity
see what
I'm talking about, I certainly know what ˇit is it is that I'm talking about. That is although for him I can't point directly to the my seeing red, for myself I can point to it, & in this sense I can give an ostensive definition of the expression to myself. ← But an ostensive def. is not a ˇmagic act of conjury.
  If I explain to someone to the use of ‒ ‒ ‒ by ‒ ‒ ‒ [T|G]iving the o. d. simply consists in ‒ ‒ ‒.
     One might be inclined to say that castling was not just the act of … .
  But it is the game ˇof wh which it is part … .
Thus ˇSo what does giving to myself the ostensive def. of red consist in?
– Now how am I to describe it shall I say seeing red
I suppose we should say I suppose looking
saying to myself
‘this is red.’
or I see red.’
that I do.
Or is it “seeing a certain colour ˇsensation & saying ‘I see red’”? The first version it seems doesn't account for the fact won't do as it isn't essential to us that when I ˇdo for myself what call ‘seeing red’ that should ˇnecessarily be what the others
by seeing red. The first vers. I don't like I assume that the others
what the
very same private
impression which I am having
So I [sh|w]ould rather leave it open what colour I am concentrating ˇmy attention on. But then how can I call it a colour? Isn't it just as uncertain that I mean by colour ˇwhat he means as that I mean by red what they mean & doesn't the same of course
applies to
holds for
‘seeing’ (for what ˇhere I mean by the word is not an activity of the human eye). (The second version is justified only if I wish to say that it does not matter here to which of the colours (say, red, green, blue, yellow)
he assigns
he gives
the name ‘red’ & so this means we might have describ said “he sees a ˇsame colour, say, blue & sais ‘I see red.’”.)

But it's a blatant error to mix up ‘seeing red’ with showing that you see red! I know what seeing red is & I know what showing … is. Coudn't we say that knowing what showing … is, is seeing
showing now what is knowing what seeing is.    Consider the prop.: He makes sure what it means to him by … . Would you say the word had meaning to him if it ‘meant something else’ every time? And what is the criterion of the same colour coming twice.
  In knowing what seeing ˇred is
you say to yourself ‘seeing red is this’
you seem to give yourself a sample
but you don't because the usual criteria
for the sameness of the sample don't apply. I can say I call ‘red’ always the same colour or I whenever I explain red I point to a sample of the same colour.

         Isn't If we describe a game which he plays with himself is it relevant that he should use the word red to the same colour in our sense or would we also call it a lang. game if he used it anyhow. Then what is the criterium for using it in the same way? Not ˇmerely the connection between ‘same’, ‘colour’ & ‘red’?

 Which is the same colour as that I saw? Not the one to which I apply the words ‘ˇthis is the same colour’?

   “Let me see if I still know which of these colours is red? – (looking about) Yes I know.” (Here I could have said “is called red”)

   ⌊⌊So he can make sure he did of what it means ↺in this private way by having a priv. sens.’!⌋⌋ Making sure that you know what ‘seeing
red’ means is good only if you can make use of this knowledge in a future case. Now what if I see a colour again, can I say I knew made sure I knew what ‘red’
so now I shall know that I'll recognize it correctly? In what sense is having said the words ‘this is red’ before a guarantee that I now see the same colour when I say again I see red

  We can indeed imagine a Robinson using a language for himself but then he must behave in a certain way or we shouldn't say that he plays lang. games with himself.

  The grammar of ‘ˇprivate sense data’

  Das Interessante ist nicht daß ich nicht auf mein Benehmen achten muß um zu wissen, daß ich Zahnschm. habe, sondern, daß mir mein Benehmen gar nichts sagt.

   “I sent him to the doctor because he moans” is just as correct as “I sent him to the d because he has toothache”.

  “I moan because I have pain”. – Are you sure that that's why you moan?

 “But d. a. the nucleus of our language remains untouched whatever we might imagine our behaviour to be!” The nucleus is the word & ˇtogether with its meaning.

  “‘Toothache’ is a word which I use in a game which I play with other people, but it has a private meaning to me.”

   “Christen toothache”

Changing the meaning of a word. Meaning connected with the use of the ostens. def..

In the use of the word meaning it is essen-
tial that the same meaning is kept in throughout a game.

Consider a game in which this isn't so. Would you call this sort of activity a game?

  “Are you sure that you call ‘toothache’ always the same private experience?”

  ‘I recognize it as being the same’. And are you also recognizing the meaning of the word the same, so you can be sure that “recognizing it to be the same” now means the same to you which it did before?

“But ˇin ostensively defining a word for myself I impress its meaning on me so as not to forget it later on”. But how do you know that this helps. How do you know ˇlater on whether you remember it rightly or wrongly

Can you recognize something to be red which isn't red?

To be sure that so & so is the case To know: Does ‘p’ follow from ‘I know p’?
⌊⌊The normal case of being sure, of a strong conviction.⌋⌋
 Does it make sense to say, that what you see is green, & you recognize it to be red?

  “It seems to me to have sense”
 You are undoubtedly using a picture therefore it ‘seems to you to
sense’. But ask yourself what use you are making of that picture? We shall have to talk about sense & nonsense later.

  What's the use here of being sure of it if it doesn't follow that it is so & if your being sure is the only criterion there is
it being so?
That means: This isn't at all a case of being sure, of conviction.

  The word ‘recognizing ˇas … ’ is used where you can be wrong in recognizing.

– Sometimes these bodies change their weight & then we look for the cause (of it) ˇof the change & findˇ, say, that something's come off the body[,|.] or that 1 the body has in some way
Sometimes however the weight ˇof a body changes & we can't account for
the change at all
. But we still nevertheless don't say that weighing it had lost its point “because now the body really doesn't have any one weight”. Rather we say that the body had changed somehow that this was the cause of the change of weight but that th hitherto we
have not
are not
found this cause. That is, we
go on playing the game of weighing &
try to find an explanation for the exceptional behaviour.
  Supposing however what way the
became the
& the
became the
use the ˇformal expression
talk of
“the weight of
body” to designate something inherent in the body something which could only be demolished by destroying part of the body. The same body – the same weight. (And this is a gramm. prop.)
  Supposing what in fact is the rule became the exception. Under certain peculiar circc. indeed a body weighd kept on weighing the same. Say iron in the presence of mercury. Most ◇◇◇ a piece of cheese on the other hand though keeping its size, calories etc., weighed
different weights at different times unaccountably.
 Would we still

    on the one hand it seems that if there wasn't the behaviour of t.
  “So & so has excellent teeth, he never had to go to the dentist, never complained about toothache; but as toothache is a private experience we can't know whether he hasn't had terrible toothache all his life”.
 What is an assumption that e.g. ‘A has toothache’? Is it the saying the words “A has t.”? Or doesn't it consist in doing something with these words? How does one assume such & such to be the case?

A game of assumption: ‒ ‒ ‒

Assuming: a state of mind. Assuming: a gesture.

  “But the point is just that we don't assume that we have t.. Therefore even if we have no ground to assuming that anyone else has t. we may nevertheless know that we have.” But would we in this case at all talk of a
(particular) behaviour as a symptom of pains? “Suppose no one knew pains & I just w except I, & I just invented a name ‘abracadabra’ for it!”

  Showing his grief, – hiding his grief.

  Certain behaviour ˇunder cert. circumst. we call showing our t. other behaviourˇ, hiding our t.. Now would we talk about this behaviour in this way if people didn't ordinarily behave in the way they do? Suppose I ˇ& they described my behaviour without such a word as pain, would the description be incomplete? Supposing The question is: do I consider it incomplete? If so I will pe distinguish between two cases of my behaviour & the others will say that I use two words alternately for my behaviour & thereby they will acnowledge that I have t..

 “But can't he have t. without in any way showing it? And this shows that the word ‘t.’ has a meaning entirely independent of a behaviour show connected with t..”

 We can't pl “The game which we play with the word ‘t.’ entirely depends upon there being a behaviour which we call the expression of t..

  “We use ‘t.’ as the name of a personal experience”. – Well lets see how we use the word!

  “But you know the sensation of t.! So you can give it a name, say, ‘t.’.”

But what is it like to give a sensation a name? Say it is pronouncing the name while one has the sensation & possibly concentrating on the sensation, – but what of it? Does this name thereby get magic powers? And why on earth do I call these sounds the ‘name’ of the sensation? I know what I do with the name of a man or of a [N|n]umber but what have I b[a|y] th[ese|is] act of ‘definition’ given the name a use?

  “I know what t. is”. But how do I know that I know it? Because something comes before my mind?
how do I know that that is the right
thing? Because I recognize it? But then it doesn't matter what it is, as long as I recognize it as t.! …

 “But when you ask me “do you know what t. is” I answer yes after having brought before my mind a certain sensation.” But now is this certain sens. characterised? Only by that that it comes when you say the word ‘t.’? Or that it comes & you are in some way satisfied?

 “To give a sensation a name” means nothing unless I know already in what sort of a game this name is going to be used.

 I've described certain behaviour by: ‘it is obvious that he was hiding his pain’ or: ‘I think he was hiding his pain’ or ‘I don't know at all whether he was hiding pain’.

  But can't I just assume with some degree of certainty that he has
pain although I have no reason whatever for it? ⌊⌊to any part use of the word⌋⌋
I [k|c]an say “I assume … ”, but if I sent them all to the doctor although they showd no sign of
, I should just be called mad.

That we try to account for something is due to the fact that we often can account for it. If I saw no regularity whatever I should not be inclined to
that there is one which I haven't as yet discovered. What usually happens makes me take this point of view.

  The ‘private definition’ is not binding.

   The role of In our priv. lang. game we had, it seemed, given a name to an impression, – in order, of course, to use
name for this imp. in the future. The def., that is, should have determined on future occasions for what impr. to use the
word ‘red’
& for which not to use it. Now we said that on certain occ. we were incl. ˇafter having given the def. we did use th[i|e]s word and on othersc we didn't not; but we refused to described these
occ. only by saying that we had ‘certain impr.’ that is we didn't describe them at all. The only thing that characterized them was that we used such & such words. What seemed in this lang. game to be a definition didn't play the role of a def. at all it did not justify one subsequently use of the word and all that remains of
priv. lang. game is ˇtherefore that I you sometimes ˇwithout justifying my part. reason write
the word ‘red’ into my diary
a word
– without any justif. whatever.

   “But surely I feel justified when normally I use the word ‘red’ although I don't thing think of a def. while doing so.” Do you mean that whenever ˇnormally you use the word ‘red’ you have a particular feeling which you call a feeling of justification. I wonder if that is true. But true or not ˇanyhow by ‘justific’ I didn't mean a feeling. But I think I know what makes you say that on saying e.g. this
is red you have a feeling of being justified in using the word. For you might ask: isn't there an obvious difference
between the case in which I use
a word in its well known meaning as when I say to someone ‘the sky is blue today’ & the case in which I
any arbitrary word on such an occasion e.g. ‘the sky is moo’. In this case, you will say, I either know that I am [1|just]
a meaning to the word ‘moo’ or else I ˇshall feel that
there is no justification whatever for using
I have no justification whatever to use
the word. The word is just any word & not the appropriate word. I quite agree that there is a difference in experience between the cases of ‘using the name of the colour’, ‘giving a ˇnew name to the colour’ & ‘using
arbitrary word in the place of the name of the colour’. But that doesn't mean that it is correct to say that I have a feeling of appropriateness in the first case which is absent in the other third. “But ‘red’ somehow seems to us to fit this colour”. We certainly may be inclined to say this sentence on certain occasions but it would be wrong to say that therefore we had a feeling of fitting whenever ordinarily we said that something was red.

  “But do you mean that one man couldn't play a game of chess with himself &
without anyone else knowing that he did?– What, would you say he should do in order
to be playing
that we may say he is playing
ˇwith himself a private game of chess? Any Just anything? – I suppose Would you just say he must go through certain private experiences but that's as good which I can (only) indirectly describe by saying that they are the experiences which he has when playing ˇa certain game chess (in the ordinary sense of the word)? I suppose you would say ˇe.g. that he imagines a chessboard with the chessmen on it,
he imagines certain mooves etc.. And
if you were
on being
asked what does it means to imagine a chessboard, you would ˇexplain it by pointing to a real chessboard or, the ˇsay to a picture of one and analogously if you were asked what does it mean to imagine casteling etc. ˇthe king of chess, a pawn, a knights moove etc.. But what if you explained: But shal Or should you have said: He must go through certain … . But will any what private experiences are there & will any of them do in this case? For
instance feeling hot? But you don't understand me. No. ˇ“No! The private exp. I am talking of must have the multiplicity of the game of chess: But
remember what we have said of
does he recognize two private exp. to be different by a further priv. exp. & this to be the
same in the different cases? Mustn't we say in this case that we can't say anything whatever about private experiences & are in fact not even entitled to use the words experiences at all? What makes us believe that we are is, that we really think of the case in which we can describe his priv. exp. describing different
of playing chess in ones imagination.

    How can we say he may see red although nobody may be able to find it out?

If we go through with this idea of
private experience which we don't know we can't talk of a certain private experience either, because
this expression is taken from the case in which what we don't know is something like say, whether if he says he sees red he sees red & not perhaps blue green or yellow.
  In which it alludes to a certain class of experiences which we know though we don't know which one of its members he has. Rather ◇◇◇ the private
ˇwhich we imagine as the background to the foreground of our actions dissolves into a mist which we wished to refer to talk about & imagined to be back of our action dissolve into a mist w    Rather the private experiences which we imagined as an unknown x a, y, z etc. behind our acti actions, loose their individualities & dissolve into a mist & into nothing.

  One might suggest–: The word ‘t’ stands on the one hand for a behaviour & on the other hand for a private experience. The connection is that when a man has the priv. exp. he tends to behave in the particular way.

  But why should you talk of a priv. exp. & not 100 priv. experiences, as you don't know whether there is any red or whether there are 100?

  What is so confusing here is to talk of the meaning of the word instead of the use.
  The idea of different kinds of objects.

  Why should you know better what experiencing is like with the other person than what seeing red is like?
  If you were very careful you would say “a certain something”.

  What does it consist in is ˇit that happen[i|s]ng when in one case I say “I
see red
have toothache
& mean it, isn't & I am not lying, & I know what I'm saying, & on the other hand I say the words but know that they are not true, or say them not knowing what exactly they mean etc.?

 The criteria for it being the truth
are laid down in language (rules, charts etc.)
. “But how am I to know how in the particular case to apply them? – For
as far as
For, being laid down … For in so far as they
are laid down in common lang. they join the rest of what is thus laid down
just part of the common lang. game
i.e. they don't help me in any particular case. ⌊⌊They join in with all the rest of …
& don't help me
not helping me
in my particular priv. decision.
They join the rest of the rules of common lang..⌋⌋
Is there such a thing as justifying what in the particular case I do just by what ◇◇◇ then further is the case ˇand not by rule? Can I say: I am now justified in using the sentence ˇjust by what is now the case … ?
does it help me to say
can I say
I am justified “when I feel justified”. For about feeling justified the same things can be said as about feeling t..

  My criteria for
saying I have t is no other than
having t are the same as
for the others saying I have t, for I can't say that feeling, or having, t. is my criterion for having a right to say it.

   Examine: ‘These two operations bring about the same pain’. The pain which they all bring about I shall call t..
    What does this shew?? Now I might explain Did I give the name ‘t.’ to a behaviour Did I call a behaviour “having toothache”? Did I call a behaviour “having the same pain”? ⌊⌊ˇBut showing t. can never be saying⌋⌋
Ich glaube ich wollte zeigen, daß ‘t.’ hier nicht als Name eines Benehmens gebraucht ist gegeben wird & daß man auch nicht auf eine Erfahrung hinten dem Benehmen zeigt.

   I must assume an expression which [I|is] not lying.
Now do I say that there [was|is]
not the experience of t. but only the behaviour?!?

  When I say that moaning is the expression of t. then under certain circs. the idea possibility of it being the expression without the feeling behind it mustn't enter my game.

 Es ist Unsinn zu sagen: der Ausdruck kann immer lügen.

  The language games with expressions of feelings are (private experiences) are based on ˇgames with expressions of which we don't say that they may lie.

  “But was I when a baby toaght that toothache meant my expression of toothache?” – I was told that a certain behaviour was called expression of toothache.

 “But isn't it possible that a child should behave just as a normal child when it has t. & not have t.?”

 But does if we speek of the baby, ‘having t.’ mean the same as ‘behaving such & such’?

 We say “poor thing, it moans”.

“Can't I in the child too, separate the moaning from the pain. Can't I say that I pity it because it has pain not because it moans?

You ought I suppose to say that you pity it because you believe that it has pains. But what is believing that it has pains like, as opposed to
just seeing
that it moans? It doesn't here consist in believing that he doesn't cheet but in a different experience.

   “Something clicked in my
I came to this colour”. ˇ(This is a gesture) But did you know from the clicking that it was red. Supposing looking at this colour your eyes opened wider & you gave a jerk, – was it by ˇits producing this reaction that you recognized
the colour as being red? ⌊⌊ I saw a particular colour concentrated on it & the word red came without tention. ⌋⌋ Indeed this is the phenomenon we call recognition but we call it that because it happens under circumstances where we have other criteria for saying that we've recognized the object.

  “But surely there is a case in which I'm justified to say “I see red”, where I'm not lying, & one where I'm not justified in saying
!” Of course I can be justified by the ostensive def. or by asking the others “now isn't this red?” & they answer that it is. But you didn't mean this justification, but one
justifies me ˇprivately whatever others will say.

  “But do you mean to say that the truth or falshood of my saying ‘I see red’ does not consist in there being red before my minds eye in one case & not in the other; but that it depends on such things as ⌇ whether I say it
with a certain tention or without
in this or that tone of voice
?” ⌇
So that roughly speaking the sentence is true if it rings true

  If I say “I see red” without reason, how can I distinguish between saying it with truth & saying it as a lie?

   It is important here
that I exclude the case of
that there is no such case as
saying the untruth by mistake.

 Hier haben wir keinen Vergleich des Satzes mit der Wirklichkeit! (Kollationen)

  Don't I know, when I say “I see red” & I am lying, that I am lying? – When do I translate my experience into the words expressing my knowledge? One might say: knowing that I am lying doesn't mean saying that I do but being ready to say it.

  I could say: Lying is characterised by
an experience of
a peculiar
tention. What is it like to know that I don't see red & to say that I do?

“Well it is simply not seeing red & saying “I see red”! There is nothing
this, as seeing & saying something are utterly independent.”

“What I now call … ”

  [We never dispute the opinions of common sense but we question the expression of common sense]

  Suppose I said “I see red” & was lying for I ˇactually saw red – but had made a slip of the tongue.
    But which lie was it I had said, or (rather) thought? Of course I may say later “I wanted to say “I see green” but did anything correspond to these words while I said “I see red”?

  But suppose that he felt that he was lying but never said so, – was did he know that he was lying or not?

   “Did he know that he was doing, what we call lying?” “Did he know that he was doing what on other occasions he called lying?”

  What is his criterion for saying
– wanting to speak the truth, – that he
lying? Is there a criterium?

  Do these Are these two sentences ˇto say the same thing: “He sa[i|y]s he sees red & realy sees red” & he sa[i|y]s he sees red
and has the experience of not lying
with conviction

  “So you think seeing red consists in saying ‘I see red’ in a certain tone of voice?” – No, but saying “I see red” & seeing it might be saying it in a certain particular tone of voice.

  How do I imagine myself seeing red? Don't I imagine red?// Isn't it by imagining red?!// But how do I imagine myself addressing a meeting?

  Imagine a Robinson lying to himself. – Why is this difficult to imagine? Look
    Look at something red & say to yourself “I see green” a) meaning by ‘green’ what usually you mean by ‘red’ (i.e. speaking the truth) b) lying.

 But one might call it lying to onesself if one e.g. turns ones watch forward to make oneself believe get up earlyer.

 Falsifying an account. I add up numbers arrive at 2730 then rub out 3 & put a 5 instead.

 When in this discussion we talk of lying it ought always to mean lying to onesself subjectively lying & by subjectively lying to the other person & not to onesself.

  If I see green without saying where I see green, in what way can these words be said to describe what I see?

 One could imagine someone constantly lying subjectively but not objectively.

 Imagine this case: Someone has a particular way if lying, he …
  He allways , [lying|lies], calling red ‘green’ & green ‘red’, but as a matter of fact what he says agrees with the usage of the other people & so his lying is never noticed. // taken notice of. //
 Supposing one said: [t|T]o see red means to see that which makes me inclined to describe it by saying ‘ … ’.
  “To know that I am lying means to have
experience which I should describe by the words ‘ … ’.”

[Our language on the one hand has very much more possibilities of expression than logicians
dream of
& on the other hand the uses of
modes of expressions are very much more limited than

 What makes lying “I see red” ˇinto lying? The
experience of not seeing red or the su private experience of feeling a certain tention?

  Is it wrong to say that lying in such & such cases consists in saying so & so & feeling a tention?
    Man könnte sehr wohl sagen daß manchmal die Lüge dadurch characterisiert ist daß ich mir bewußt bin daß es sich anderes
verhält, & manchmal nicht [in|so], sondern dadurch, daß ich die Spannung des schlechten Gewissens spüre; etc..

Wenn ich nun sage “der lügt, der sagt ‘ich sehe rot’ & sieht grün”, so stimmt das nicht, denn ich mußte sagen “der lügt der sagt ‘ich sehe rot’ & weißt (oder glaubt) er sieht grün”.

    “Der lügt, der sagt “ich sehe rot” & sieht die Farbe, die er selbst mit dem Worte grün bezeichnen würde.” Aber das heißt doch (wohl) wahrheitsgemäß so bezeichnen würde. Oder können wir sagen, “für sich so bezeichnen würde”?
     Daher ja die Idee daß man lügen kann indem man laut das eine & leise das andre sagt & was man laut sagt ist ˇhier die Lüge.

  “Der weiß, welche Farbe er sieht, der es irgendwie ausdrücken könnte.” Was ist das criterium dafür daß, er

Was soll es dann heißen: einen Farbeneindruck wahrheitsgemäß mit ‘rot’ bezeichnen? Paßt das Wort dem einen Eindruck besser als dem anderen?

  Man könnte hier auch sagen man solle ˇgar nicht von subjectiver Wahrheit der Farben sprechen. Die Wahrheit des Satzes “Ich habe Zahnschmerzen” habe nur objektiv beurteilt zu werden.

  “Das wahre Wort kommt anders als das falsche.”

 Man kann sagen: “Alle diese Worte sind in derselben Weise gekommen.”

  Das Wort welches Du sprichst ist eine Reaktion. Die Reaktion die wir in dem Satz übersehen “er sieht … ”. – Aber ist es nicht wahr daß der Andere nicht wissen braucht, daß meine Reaktion in dieser & dieser Weise vor sich geht? Er meint, ich sage ihm geradeheraus was ich sehe & es ist nicht so, sondern ich erfinde eine Lüge.

    “Er weiß nicht was ich sehe, bis ich es ihm sage; ich weiß es schon vorher // ehe er es erfährt // .” Könnte es auch umgekehrt sein?

  Ich habe jetzt lange mit einem Bleistift geschrieben: wußte ich in diesem Satz daß die Schrift grau & das Papier weiß ist?
  Wußte ich das
oder wußte ich bloß, daß es ist wie es ist?

  “Ich weiß, daß ich ˇes ihm nicht geradeheraus gesagt habe.” – “Ja, aber war nicht vor dieser ‘Reaktion’ schon etwas da, nämlich eben das Erlebnis, daß ich es ihm nicht geradeheraus gesagt habe?”

 “Können wir nicht doch sagen, daß etwas jedem sichtbar , (äußerlich),
& etwas ˇweiteres nur mir
, ‘in mir’?”

“How am I justified in saying to myself that ˇI see this apple as red”? You are not justified. – But isn't it true that when I say the truth I am justified & when Iˇ'm lying I'm not justified.

  How is a ly possible in a case where there is no justification?

  Supposing one said, lying (here) consists in applying one word to the colour
& not another? A misleading word instead of a not misleading one?

  I am justif. if the word comes in one way, & not justif. if it comes in an other way. –But in which way? – If it comes in the straightforward way I'm justified. But which is the straightforward way? – I know but can't explain as the paradigm of it is in me. – But as far as it's in you it serves no purpose in the future application of the word. (priv. ostens. def.

 How do I know that it comes in the straightforward way? What the str. way is must be fixed by a paradigm.

  “Why on earth should it be wrong to use a word not in the simple (‘straightforward’) way?” Couldn't it not even be my duty to use the word which doesn't come straightforwardly? Imagine the case where we had laid down a code in which ‘red’ meant green.

  “I said the word with a bad conscience.”

  What troubles me are the prop. in which an action is described accompanied by a ‘state of mind’.

  “Lying when you say “I see red” consists in saying these words & having a private experience which I call un ‘feeling unjustified’, or ‘seeing green’ etc.” – “But suppose that I call the feeling of being justified “feeling unjustified”!?” –
Now this
last sentence though it sounds absurd had sense.

  “What you say comes to this: that when
truely say that ‘I see red’
I am
you are
not justified in saying this by
fact that
see red”. – No I should say ‒ ‒ ‒

  “You either have a feeling of being unjustified or you don't!”

  “But surely there is a case in which I say ‘I see red’ & am telling the (subjective) truth & one in which I tell a ly!” – Yes, that is, we distinguish between
a case of telling the
telling the
truth &
a case of not telling
not telling
the truth. – But what does lying in
such a
case, consist in? We may thy all sorts of explanations: “It consists in saying … & seeing green”, “It consists in saying … & knowing that I see … ”, “It consists in saying … & feeling that I'm not justified in saying this” & others. Now ˇlet me ask: do all these expl. come to the same or do they describe different facts? We
say: if they describe different
the differences
don't matter to us here
. For our purpose they can ˇall be said to describe the same
. (We might have said lying consists in saying “I see red” & having stomach ache but as stomac ache is a priv. sens. why not rather consider the priv. sens. of just seeing green a colour other than red?) We may say therefore that these explanations for our purpose were no explanations at all. They left us just
where we were before, and they only (seem) (to)
affirm say
that the cases of lying & saying the truth are distinguished by ˇthe private experiences accompanying the sentence. So let' us say ask ˇput our questions like this: lying in our case consists in saying “I see red” & seeing green
What does seeing green consist in? As an answer we immediately give ourselves a sample
‘for green’
of green
. But is it essential that this sample should be what the others also call green? No it might be what they call yellow or blue or red etc.. But wou are you inclined to say “it might be what they call hot, cold or tepid”? Then ˇafter all you arec thinking of games played with the others though you left a certain latitude … .

  When we talk of the private experiencec which the others don't know we originally ⇄ don't mean to talk of a shapeless nothing but of a variable with certain definite values.

  It is said sometimes that if I & someone else are looking at some object I can never know what colour the other really sees. But with what
right do we here
speak of
‘colour’ & seeing Some philosophers like (e.g. Driesch) would here be inclined to think that they can
save the situation
solve the puzzle
by using the senseless phrase “We can't know what they ˇother ha[ve|s]” Compare Driesch:
… .
 But the word ‘to have’ could here only help us if it had no meaning at all & then it couldn't help us. But as long as ‘to have’ here has any meaning at all it can't help us & when it has no meaning at all ˇI think it can't help us either.

  “We distinguish between … & … ” that means: We some times sometimes use the expression “I lied when I said that I saw green”
as opposed to
“I told the truth when I said ‘ … ’”. But isn't this enough? – “But under what circumstances do you use the expression ‘ … ’”? But must I necessarily stopp giving you circumstances with when I have given you a sample? Why not when I have given you a word, a verbal expression? Is the use of such an expression necessarily indefinite as compared
with the use of a sample – ( can't a sample be used, compared with objects, in many different ways?

 The word lying is taught us in a part way in which it was fastened to a gr certain behaviour to the use of a certain expression under certain circumstances. Then we use it saying that we have been lying when we our have noticed it behaviour was not the one like the one which first constituted the meaning.

   Just in the same way we were taught the word ‘red’ in a game say like No1 & then we use it when the conditions are different (compare the past in the description of a dream) (and of course it isn't just the word ‘red’ we use but the whole imagery connected with it)

  “But you talk as though there was only the
expr. ‘I see red’
word ‘red’
but not an impression corresponding to it. On the contrary I too distinguish between don't say that when a man says … he also has the impression.

 But is all that happens that you say ‘I see red’? Isn't there something else being the case, happening, when you say this & it is true? But if you ask isn't there something else happening, you don't mean just anything else e.g. that it's raining. So after all you'll have to give descriptions of what
you mean is happening
it is that happens
& insofar as you give a description of it you must know what ˇit is that happens & it is not
x. And keeping it partly unknown doesn't help you either. On the other hand there is no reason why you should und always stopp with giving a sample & not with giving
an expression
a word
. (In this sense one can say that an expression acts
as a picture)
as much as a picture as a sample)

 The philosophical puzzle seems insoluble if we are franc
ourselves, & is, insoluble. That is 1 That is untill ˇthat is we change our question.

  ‘Expression ˇcan always ˇbe lying’ How can we say this of the expression to which
we fasten our words?

  “But I always know whether I'm lying or not!” – You are
obsessed with
the use of the word
the word
In general
As a rule
you talk without thinking of lying & of whether you ly or not.

 But (then) I'm always either lying or not lying! (Whether I ˇalways know it or not)

   [Is there always a link between reality & our expressions?]

  Suppose a child learnt the word ‘toothache’ as an equivalent for it's moaning & noticed that whenever it said the word or moaned the grown-ups treated it particularly well. The child then uses moaning or the word ‘t.’ as a means to bring about the desired effect: is the child lying?

  You say: A grown-up “Surely I can moan with toothache & I can moan without toothache, so why shouldn't the child be able it be so with the child? Of course I only see
& hear the childs behaviour but from my own experience I know whatc toothache is (like) // I know toothache apart from behaviour // & I am led to believe that the others ˇsometimes have the pains I have”. – The first sentence allready is misleading: It isn't the question wheter I can moan with & without toothache, but the point is that I distinguish ‘moaning with toothache’ & ‘moaning without toothache’ & now we can't go on to say that of course in the child we make the same distinction. In fact we don't. We teach the child t[he|o] use the words “I have toothache” to replace its moans, & this was how I
was taught the expression. ˇHow do I know that I have learnt the word t. to mean what they wanted me to express? ˇI ought to say I believe I have t.?
  Now one can moan because one has pains or, or e.g., one can moan on the stage. How do I know that the child, small as it is, doesn't already act & in this case I teach it to mean by ‘toothache’ something I don't
it to mean?

  I have taught the child to use the expression ‘I have toothache’
under certain circumstances ˇand now it uses these words under these circumstances. – But what are these circumstances? Shall
“the circumstances under which it moaned”, and what are these?

    But now I also teach the child to moan on the stage! That is to say I ˇeven teach
to use this expression in a different game. I also teach it to read out the sentence ‘I have toothache’
a book, when it hasn't toothache.
 In fact I could teach it to lie, as a separate language game. (In fact we often play this kind of game with children)

  “But doesn't what you say come to this that it doesn't matter what the persons feel as long as only they behave a particular way?”

  “But “Do you mean that you can define pain in terms of behaviour?”
 But is this what we do if we teach the child to use the expression ‘I have toothache’? Did I
: “Toothache is such & such a behaviour”?
This obv. contradicts
This would obviously be entirely against
the normal use of th[is|e] word! “But can't you, on the other hand,
at least to yourself give an ostensive def. of ‘toothache’. Pointing to the place of your pain & saying “this is … ”?” Can't I give a name to the pain I've got? Queer idea to give one pain a name! What's it to with a name? Or what do I do with it? What I do with the name of a person whom I call by the name. I mean to say What connection is the name ˇto have with the pain. So far the only connection ˇso far is this that you had toothache pointed to your cheek &
the word ‘moo’. “So what?” Remember what we said about priv. ost. def.

 “But aren't you neglecting something – the experience or whatever you might call it –? Almost the world behind the mere words?”

   But here solipsism
can teach
us a lesson;
It is that thought which is
It is the thought which is
on the way to destroy this
wrong idea.
For if the world is idea it isn't any persons idea. (Solipsism stops short of saying this & says that it is my idea). But then how could
I desc say what the world
if I the realm of ideas has no neighbour. What I do comes to defining the word world.
  ‘I neglect that which goes without saying.’

  “What is seen , I see” (pointing to my body) I point at my
eye, saying this. Or I point with closed eyes & tuch my breast & feel it. In no case do I make a connection between what is seen & a person.

 Back to ‘neglecting’! It seems that I neglect life. But not life physiologically understood but life as consciousness. And consciousness not physiologically understood; but or, understood from the outside, but consciousness as the very essence of experience, & the appearance of the world, the world.

Couldn't I say: if I had to add the world to my language it would have to be one sign for the whole of language which sign could therefore be left out.

  Isn't what you reproach me of as though you said: “In your language you're only speaking!”

 How am I to describe the way the child learns the word ‘toothache’ – like this? The child sometimes has t. it moans ˇ& holds its cheek, the grown up[p|s] say “ … ” etc.. Or: The child sometimes moans & holds its cheek, – the grown-ups … ”? Does the first description say something superfluous ˇor false or does the second leave out something essential? Both descriptions are correct

  “But it seems as if you were neglecting something.” But what more can I do than distinguish the cases of saying ‘I have t.’ when I ˇreally have t., & the case of saying ˇthe words without having ˇthe t.?
 I am
ready to talk of any x behind my words so long as it keeps its identity.

  ‒ ‒ ‒But why shouldn't I say “I have t. in his tooth”. I would insist on his tooth being extracted. Who
is supposed to cry ˇout if it is?

  What does it mean distributing primary experience over all subjects? Imagine that they have all real toothaches in their teeth. The one which now only I have. I now describe certain facts. (Not metaphysical ones but facts about the
of certain experiences.)

   He gets a blow ˇ& cries, – I think: “no wonder for it really hurts”. But wouldn't I say to myself: Queer that he cries for I feel the pain all right, – but he?!

 What does it consist in that I have pain, I feel myself crying, I hear that I am crying, my mouth cries?

 It seems there is a phenomenon which in general I refer to as ‘my toothache’ which, experience teaches me, is ˇalways connected with one particular person (not ‘I’ but) L.W.. I now imagine facts other than they are & connect up this phenomenon to all sorts of persons so as to make it not at all tempting to call this phenomenon ‘my toothache’.

 Isn't it a particular phenomenon to hear myself speak (not, ‘to hear L.W. speak’). ‒ ‒ ‒

  “I see so & so” does not mean “The person so & so ˇe.g. L.W. sees so & so”.

 A ˇlang. game in which everybody calls out what he sees but without saying “I see … ”. Could anybody say that what Th I call out is incomplete because I have left out to mention the person?!

 A language game in which everybody (& I too) call out what I see without mentioning me.

  They allways know what I see. If they don't seem to, I misunderstand what they say.

  I am tempted to say: “It seems ˇat least a fact of experience that at the source of the visual field there is mostly a small man with gray [t|f]lanel trousers in fact L.W.”. – If Someone might answer me to this: It is true
you you almost always ware gray flannel trousers & often look at them.

    “Ich bin doch be[f|v]orzugt. Ich bin der Mittelpunkt der Welt.” Denken wir uns ich sähe mich in einem Spiegel das sagen & auf mich zeigen! Wäre es noch richtig?
      When I say that I play a unique role I really mean the geometrical eye.

  On the other hand if I describe the usual appearance of my body around the geometrical eye this is on the same level as saying that I see in the middle of the visual field there is in general a brown table & at the edges a white wall (as I generally sit in my room).
     Now suppose I described this in the form: The visual world in general is like this: (follows the description). Would this be wrong? – Why should it be wrong?! But the question is, what game
I intend to be playing
is to be played
with this sentence, e.g., who is ˇallowed to say it & what are the reactions to this statement are to be, // and
in what way
those to whom it is said
the people who hear it
to react // to
this statement
// ? I should like to say, that it's I who is to say it, but not L.W., but the person at the source of the vis. field. But this I seem not to be able to explain to
anyone but me.
(Queer state of affairs) The game played might be the one ˇwhich is in general played with “I see so & so”.

 Can't I say something to nobody, neither to anybody else nor to myself? What is the criterium of saying it to myself?

If I see a fire he runs to extinguish it.

  At intervals I paint what I see. But can't someone else paint it for me? Or the picture be presented to me somehow, already finished?

 What, if I see before me a picture of the room as I am seeing the room?
 Is this a lang. game?

  I want to say: “the visual world is like this … ”,– but why say anything?
// but why say anything? // ¥

  Der Solipsismus // Die Auffassung des Solipsismus // erstreckt sich nicht auf Spiele. Der Andere
kann Schachspielen so gut wie ich
kann so gut Schachspielen, wie ich

  I.e., when we play a lang. game we are on the same level.

   “I am in the lucky position of being in the source of the visual
. It is I who see it.” I have a comfortable feeling while saying this although the statement isn't one of the class of statement which in general give me this kind of feeling. I said it as though I had said I
have more money than anyone else
am the wealthiest person man in the place

  But the point is that I don't establish a relation between a person & what is seen. All I do is that alternately I point in front of me & to myself.

But sure what I now see,
this view of my room
this room
, plays a unique role, it is the visual world!

   (Der Solipsist flattert & flattert in der Fliegenglocke, schlägt sich an den Wänden, flattert weiter. stößt sich an den Wänden, flattert weiter. Wie ist er zur Ruhe zu

 You use
‒ ‒ ‒
: this is what I now see”. Leave out the “see”, leave out the “now”, leave out the “this” & ˇleave out the “I”.

 “(Description): this is the visual world”. But why do you say visual & why do you say that it's the world?

  “A red patch is (now) at the center”. All others must say “I see … ”. But is this distinction necessary, as I know anyhow who's saying it, I whether I or one of the others?

  But the real question ˇfor me is here: How am I defined? Who is it, that is favoured? I. But may I lift up my head to indicate who it is?
    – Supposing I constantly change & my surrounding does: is there still some continuity namely by it being me & my surrounding that
were changing?!

(Isn't this similar to thinking that when
spacial things
things in space
have changed entirely there's still one thing that
remains the same, namely space.) (Space confused with room)

But is my hand favoured as compared to someone else's hand I see? ˇThis is ridiculous. Then either nobody is favoured or I am, that is then person L.W. whose hand lifted.

 All right, – when I, L.W., see what's seen!

  Where is my toothache? I.e. how is its place determined?

  “What I now see justif. me in saying that I see red”. And what do you now see?
The answer may be “this” but you ◇◇◇ answer I don't tell myself what it is I see.
If the answer is “this” it is no answer I give to myself.

 I don't see what I see more definitely if at the same time I see my finger pointing to it. (The question ought to have been what are you now looking at).
 I don't tell myself what it is I see by
looking at
my finger pointing to what something.
Suppose I said: “What I now see justif. me in saying “I see red” because it is the same colour as this sample”,
this is a justific. only if I use the
“the same colour” in a fixed way. That is when we judge how this word is used on the ordinary grounds of behaviour etc.

 Is the criterion for my playing a private game of chess my being however strongly inclined to say that I am playing one)?

  How does one feel whether I am strongly inclined?

  What would I say if I cam in my priv. judgements came into contradiction with all other people. I.e. if I could no longer play a lang. game with them. Or if all the facts round me became extraordinary? Would I stick to my judgements?

  Suppose someone asked me “What does it mean to play a private game of chess with oneself” & I answered: “Anything, because if I ◇◇◇ said that I was playing a game of chess I would be so
that I was that I would stick to what I said whatever anyone else anyhow say.”
⌊⌊ Under what circ. would we say that he did what we call portraying & under what circ. that he called something portraying which we didn't call that? Suppose here we said: Well I can never know what he does inwardly would this be anything than resignation? ⌋⌋

  Suppose someone painted pictures of the landscape which surrounds it, he sometimes paints the leaves of trees orange sometimes blue, sometimes the clear sky red etc. Under what circumstances would we agree with him that he was portraying the landscape?

   We call something a calculation if, for instance, it leads to a house being built.

   But can't he play a game with the colournames against whatever anybody else sais? But why should we call it a game with the colournames. “But if I played it I would stick to saying that I was playing a game with the colournames.” But is that all I can say about it; is all that I can say for its being this kind of game that I stick to calling it so?

↺ We call something a lang. game if it plays a particular role in our
human life.

 Under what circumstances
I say I am entitled to say that I'm seeing red. The answer is showing a sample i.e. giving the rule. But if now I came into
contradiction with what anybody else said, should I not say that I am applying the rule in a way which prevents me from playing their game. I.e. That is: is all that is necessary that the rule I give should be the rule they give or isn't besides this an agreement in the application necessary?

  If the
having the
he has the
same painsmeans the same as “
he sais
has the same pains” then “I have the same pain” means the same as “I say that I have the same pains” & the exclamation ‘oh!’ means “I say ‘oh!’”.

  Roughly speaking: The
’I have t.‘
stands for a moan but it does not mean ‘I moan’

   But if “I have t.” stands for a
moan, what does “he has t.” stand for?
 One might say: it too stands for a moan, that of compassion.

  “T., seeing etc. I only know from myself & not from the other.”
    “I never know that he has t., I only know when I have it.”
     “I can only believe that he has it, that he has what I have.”
   “Has ‘t.’ then a different meaning in my case & in his?”
   “Isn't it possible that everybody should have t. ˇbut without expressing it?”
   “If it is possible that sometimes one can have ‘t.’ without expressing it, it is possible that always ◇◇◇ this should be so.”
    “If my personal experience is all I know how can I even assume that there is any other besides?”
     “Does ‘t.’ in the other mean behaviour?”
     “I ˇonly know what I mean by ‘t.’.”
     “I was taught the word ‘t.’ in connection with my behaviour but interpreted it to mean my pain.”
   “Only my ‘t.’ is real t.”.
 “What justifies me in saying that the other has t. is his behaviour, what just. me saying that I have is the experience of t..”
    “Is there only the expression of t. & not the t.?”

 “I know what it means to say that the other has ‘t.’ even if I have no means to find out whether he has.”

  “Only he knows whether he has t., we can never know.”
   “Does the I enter into the personal experience or not?”

   We aren't lying ˇare speaking the truth if a fact corresponds to the sentence. This is no explanation at all but a mere repetition unless we can supplement it by ‘namely this↗’ & a demonstration & the whole explanation lies just in this demonstration. The whole problem here only arose through the fact that in this case the demonstration is of a different kind, that the demonstration of ‘I see red’, ‘I have t.’ seems indirect to be a demonstration. in a different sense than the term of If I say we must assume an expression which can't lie this can't be explained by saying, that really pain corresponds to this expression.

   “But aren't you saying, that
all that happens is the moaning & that there is nothing behind it?” –
 I am saying that there is nothing behind the moaning.

  “Do you deny that the moaning is the expression of something”. No, that is I too should call moaning an expression (or even an expression of something though this is misleading). But the word expression here only characterizes the lang. game played with it. I react differently

       “So, you don't really have pain, you just moan?!” – There seems to be a description of my behaviour & also, in the same sense a description of my experience my pain! The one so to speak the description of an external the other of an internal fact. This corresponds to the idea that it in the sense in which I can give a part of my body a name I can give a name to a private experience (only indirectly)
  And I am drawing your attention to this that the lang. games are
very much more different than
it appears
you think

 You couldn't call moaning a description! But this shows you how far the prop. “I have t.” is from a ‘description’, & how far teaching the use of the word t. is from teaching the word tooth.

 One could from the beginning teach the child the expression “I think he has toothache” ˇinstead of “he has t.” with the corresponding
tone of voice. This ˇmode of expr. could be described by saying that we can only believe that the owner has t..
  But why not in the childs own case? Because there the tone of voice is simply determined by nature.

   In “I have t.” the expression of pain is brought to the same form as a description “I
I have 5 shillings
have a matchbox

 We teach the child to say “I have been lying” when it has behaved in a certain way. ⌊⌊ˇ Imagine here a typical case of a ly ⌋⌋ Also this expression goes along with a
particular situation, facial expressions, say of shame, tones of reproach etc.
     But doesn't the child know that it is lying before ever I teach him the
verbal expression
? ˇIs this meant to be a metaphysical question or a question about facts? It doesn't know it as words. And why should it know it at all? – “But do you assume that it has only the facial expression of shame, e.g., without the feeling of shame? Mustn't you describe the inside situation as well as the outside one?” – But what if I said that by facial expr. of shame I meant what you mean by the fac. exp. & the feeling, unless I explicitly distinguish between genuine, &
fac. expressions? It is, I think, misleading to describe the genuine expression as a sum of the expression & something else, though it is just as misleading to say that the genuine expression is nothing
a particular behaviour. // is a part. behav. & nothing besides. // We just
misunderstand / get
the function of our
// of language //
if we
// : //

We teach the child the use of the word “to speak”. = Later it uses the expression “I
to myself”. = We then say “We never know whether ˇ& what a person speaks to himself”.

The Surely the ˇdescr. of the facial expr.
is used
can be meant (used)
as a description of feelings & can be
otherwise. In a story we often We constantly used such expressions as “When he heard that he
a long face” & don't add that the expression was genuine. In other cases we describe the acting of a person in the same words or again we wish to leave it open whether the expression was genuine or not. To say that
we describe the feeling indirectly by the descr. of expressions
a description of feelings of expressions used as a description of feelings is indirect
is wrong!

Imagine a lang. in which toothache is called “moaning” & the difference between just moaning & moaning with pain is expressed by the moaning or dryc tone in which the word is pronounced.
  People would not say in this lang. that it became clear later on that
A didn't really have pain, but they would perhaps in an angry tone say that at first he moaned & then he suddenly laughed.

Supposed Suppose he sais to himself “I lie”,
what is to show that he means it?
how do we know whether he means it?
But we shwould any
describe this lying by saying: “He said … & told himself at the same time that he was lying”. Is this too an indirect description of lying?

    But couldn't one say that if I speak of a man's angry voice meaning that he was angry & again of his angry voice not meaning that he was angry in the first case the meaning of the description of his voice was much further reaching than in the second case? I will admit that our description in the first case doesn't omit anything & is as complete as though we had said that he really was angry, – but somehow the meaning of the expression then
reaches below
goes beyond
the surface.

 But how does it do that? The answer to this would be an explanation of the
two uses
of the expression. But how could this explanation reach
under the surface? It is an explanation about
& it states the in which cases it these
are used. But how does it characterize
cases? Can it in the end do more than distinguish two expressions? I.e. describe a game with two expressions?
     “Then is there nothing under the surface?!” But I said that I was going to distinguish two expressions, one for the ‘surface’ & one for ‘what is below the surface’ only remember that these expressions themselves correspond just to a picture, not to its usage. It is just as misleading to say that there is
nothing but
surface ˇ& nothing underneath it as that there is something below the surface & not that there isn't just the surface. Because once the picture we
make use of
the picture of the ‘surface’ it is most natural to
express with it the distinction as on & below the surface.
use it such as to express the distinction as that between something on & something below the surface.

 But // Because we naturally use
picture to express the distinction as that between ‘on the surface’ & ‘below the surface’ // But we misapply [it|the picture] if we ask whether both cases are or aren't on the surface.

  Now in order that with its normal meaning we should teach a child the expression “I have lied” the child must behave in the normal way. E.g. it must under certain circs. ‘admit’ that it lied, it must do so with a certain facial expression etc. etc. etc.. We may not always find out whether he lied or not but if we never found out the word would have a different meaning. “But once he has learnt the word he can't be in doubt whether he is lying or not!” – Consider the case of the person who finds that his subjective lies are ◇◇◇ judged by the ordinary criteria, ◇◇◇ truths. He sais that he has been to school feeling that it's a ly but the teacher ˇ& the boys confirms that he has been etc. etc.. You might say: “But surely he can't be in doubt that he said a subjective ly”. But suppose he said “I've been to school”

     This ˇof course is like saying that he can't be in doubt ˇabout whether he has toothache or whether he sees red etc. On the one hand: doubting whether I have the experience E is not like doubting whether someone else has it. Remember what we said about the assymetry of the game № 1. On the other hand
one can't say that “surely I must know what ˇit is I see” for unless to know what I see is to mean to see whatever I see. ◇◇◇ The question is what are we to call “knowing what ˇit is I see”, “not being in doubt about what it is I see”. Under what circumstances are we to say that a person is in no doubt ˇor in doubt about this? (Such cases as being in no doubt about whether this looks red to the normal eye & analogous ones ˇof course don't interest us here.) I suppose that to the knowledge of what it is I see must be the knowledge that it is so & so I see. ‘So & so’ standing for some expression verbal or otherwise. (But remember that I don't give myself an information by pointing to something I see with my finger & saying to myself I see this.) ‘So & so’ in fact stands for
a word
an expression
of a lang. game. And doubting what it is I see
will be
doubting what lang. game to play ˇe.g. what to call what I see. But there may be very different cases of this. I may just ‘have forgotten the name of the colour’. This means
that I can find it out by asking someone what is this colour (pointing) called. But this isn't an interesting case.
 Doubting e.g. whether to say “I see red” or “I see green”. “But this is a simple doubt about the appelation of a colour & ˇit can be settled by asking someone what this colour (pointing) is called”. But are all such doubts doubts about what people removable by this question (or which comes to the same by giving a definition “I shall call this colour so & so”)?

  “What colour do you see?” – “I don't know – is it red, or isn't it red; I don't know what colour it is I see.” – “What on earth do you mean What do you mean? Is the colour constantly changing, or do you see it so very faintly practically black?” Now Could I say ˇthen: “don't you see what you see?” I this obviously would make no sense.


 “What colour do you call: a, e, i, o or u?” – “I don't know which colour I see?”

“Primary colours are those used in flags”

  It is queer that one never uses brown on a flag & says it is a blend of yellow, black & red although nobody can really produce a proper brown by mixing these colours.

  Is there a reason for not admitting brown as a primary colour?
    Is it not enough that we refuse to group it with red, blue, green, etc.?

  One sometimes thinks the reason is that we see transitions from brown to ˇpure yellow, red, black; but so we do in the case of red etc.

    Imagine all objects around us where irridescent, I mean of the appearance of a white
on which the sun is shining, you would see ˇthe surface covered with tiny specks of red blue green yellow

  Shall we say that a pointillist sees the objects as he paints them?

  It seems as though, however the outward circs. change, once the
word is fastened to a particular personal experience, it now retains its meaning; and that therefore I can now use it with sense whatever may happen.
     To say that I can't doubt whether [to say|I see] red is in a sense absurd as the game I play with the expression “I see red” doesn't contain a doubt of this form.
     It seems, – whatever the circumstances I always know now whether to apply the word or not. It seems, at first it was a move in a special game, but then it becomes independent of this game.
   (This reminds one of the way the idea of length seems to become emancipated from any particular method of measuring it.)

   We are tempted to say: “damn it all, a rod has a particular length however I express it. And one could go on to say that if I see a rod I always see ˇ(know) how long it is although I can't say how many feet, meters etc. – But suppose I just say: I always know whether its
tiny or big!

  But can't the ˇold game loose its point when the circs. change, so that the
ceases to have a meaning although of course I can still pronounce it.

   He sticks to to saying that he has been lying although none of the normal consequences follow. What is there left of the lang. game, except that he sais the expression?

  We learn the word ‘red’ under part. circs. Certain objects are usually red & keep their colour, most people agree with us in our colour judgements. Suppose all this changes: I see blood unaccountably sometimes one sometimes another colour & the people around me all make different statements. But couldn't I in all this chaos retain
meaning of ‘red’, ‘blue’, etc. I although I couldn't make myself understood to anyone?
  Samples e.g. would all constantly change their colour – ‘or ◇◇◇ changing the meaning does it only seem so to me?’ “Now am I mad or have I really called this ‘red’ yesterday?”

  The situation in which we are inclined to say “I must have gone mad!”

  “But we could always call a colour-impression ‘red’ & stick to it this application!”

   Die Atmosphäre man die dieses Problem umgibt ist schrecklich. Dichte Nebel der Sprache sind um den problematischen Punkt gelagert. Es ist beinahe unmöglich dazu zu kennen zu ihm vorzudringen.

  Suppose I said had before me drawings of what I & other people now see & I said of the drawing of what I see “there is something unique about this picture”.

   If I can speak about ‘what is seen’, why shouldn't anyone else speak about it? – But I have a feeling that only I can; if I assume that others also speak about what normally I should call my visual image there seems to me to be something
wrong with this assumption.
   If ‘what I see’ has nothing to do with a particular person why should I feel that there's something wrong in assuming that anybody might talk about it i.e. mean it when he speaks? Then of course I can't tell them what I see nor they me what they see any more than I can tell myself what I see.
   But they could make conjectures as to what might happen in future in our visual field.
     In the normal game I say: “I don't know what they see, they've got to say what they see”, – but in the game I'm concidering they would as much know what I see as my hand can wri[g|t]e down what my mouth can say.
    And their ˇdifferent conjecture would be like conjectures made by myself at different times.
   Can my mouth tell my hand what I see in order that my hand should be able to write it down?

    Do I by painting what I see tell myself what I see?

     “This picture is ◇◇◇ unique, for it represents what is really seen”.
   What justification do I have to say this // What is my justification for saying this? //

  I see two spotts on this wall & lift two fingers. Do I tell myself that I see two spots? But on the other hand couldn't this be the sign that for my seeing two spots?!

Ist das Bild ausgezeichnet oder zeichne ich es aus?

  “Today he points to me, & yesterday he pointed to me also.”

  The meaning of: “He points [to|at] me.

   “I see that he points at A”
   “I see that he points at me”

 You seem to be able to give yourself a sort of ostensive explana-
tion of what the word expression “What is seen” refers to.

   Imagine a game: a group of people tell each other A tells B what B sees B tells A what A sees One person tells the other what he (the other) sees if he has guessed it rightly he is rewarded. If A hasn't guessed correctly what B sees B corrects him & says what it is he sees. This game could be like is more instructive if we imagine the persons not to say what is seen but to paint it or ˇto make models of it. – Now let me imagine that I am one of them. pl. the players.
    Wouldn't I be tempted to say: “The game is asymmetrical, for only what I say I see corresponds to a visual image.

  The [P|p]roblem lies thus: This ↗) is what is seen; & this is also what I see.

 Frage Dich: Kann das ↗) nur ich sehen, ober kann es auch ein Andrer sehen?
Warum nur ich?

  Für mich existiert kein Unterschied zwischen ich & das↗; & das Wort “ich” ist für mich kein Signal, das einen Ort oder eine Person
// eines Orts oder einer Person // .

  Ich versuche das ganz Problem auf das
nicht verstehen
◇◇◇ der Funktion des Wortes ‘Ich’ & ‘↗’ zu reduzieren

  When I
at a coloured object & say “this is red” I seem to know exactly to what I give the name red. As it were to that which I am drinking in.

It is as though there was a magic power in the words “this is … ”.

 I can bring myself to say: There is no toothache there ↗ (in the man's cheek who says he has toothache). And what would be the expression for this in ordinary language? Wouldn't it be my saying “I have no toothache there”?

  “But who says this?” – “I!” And who says
this? – “I!”‒ ‒ ‒

 Suppose I give this rule: “Whenever I said ‘I have t.’, I shall from now on say ‘there is t.’”.

  I tell the waiter bring me always clear soup & thick soup to the others. He tries to remember my face.
    Suppose I change my face (body) every day entirely, how is he to know which is me. But it's a question of the existence of the game. “If all chessmen were alike how should one know which is the king?”
   Now it seems that, although he couldn't know which is me, I still
know it.
    Suppose now I said: “it wasn't so & so, it was I who asked for clear soup”, – couldn't I be wrong? Certainly. I.e. I may think that I asked him, but didn't. Now are there two mistakes I can make: one, thinking that I asked him, the other, thinking that I asked him? I say: “I remember having asked you yesterday”, he replies: “You weren't there ˇat all yesterday”. Now I could say either
“Well then I suppose I remember wrongly” or: “I was here only I looked like himc yesterday”.

   It seems that I can trace my identity quite independent of the identity of my body. And the idea is suggested that I trace the identity of something dwelling in a body the identity of my mind.
  “If anybody asks me to describe what I see, I describe what's seen.”

  What we call a description of my sense datum, of what's seen, independent of what is the case in the physical world, is ˇstill a description for the other person.

 If I speak of a description of my sense datum I don't mean to give a particular person as its possessor.
   (No more do I want to speak about a particular person when I moan with pain.)

   It must be a serious & deep-seated desease of language (one might also say ‘of thought’) which makes me say: “Of course this ↗) is what's really seen”.
“Property of space”
   I can tell you the fact p because I know that p is the case. But It has sense to say “it rained & I knew it” but not “I had toothache & knew that I had. “I know that I have toothache” means nothing or the same as “I have toothache”.
    This, however, is a remark about the use of the word “I”, whoever uses it.


  Examine the
: “There is something there”, referring to the visual sensation I am now having.

  Aren't we inclined to think that this is a statement making sense & being true? And on the other hand, isn't it a pseudo statement?
   But what (what entity) do you mean (refer to), when you say that sentence? – Aren't we here up against the old difficulty that it seems to us that meaning something was a special state ˇor activity of mind? For it is
true that saying these words I am in a special state of mind, I stare at something, – but this just doesn't constitute meaning.

 Compare with this such a statement as: “
of course
I know what I am referring to by the word toothache”.

 Think of the
of mind mental state in which you say to yourself that p ∙ ~p
make sense & by repeating a statement of this form you are ◇◇◇, as it were, ˇby introspection trying to find out what it means.

of staring is closely bound up with the whole puzzle of solipsism.

   “If I am asked ‘what do you see?’, I describe the visual world.” – Couldn't I say instead of this “ … I am describing what's is there↗” ˇ(pointing before me)?

But now consider the case of someone having a picture before him of the part of his room he ˇis seeing & that he's saying: “this in the picture is like this (a part of his visual field, as he is looking at his room).”

Editorial notes

¤1) Continuation from Ms-148,48v.