“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,
that
then
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
again
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
ways
kind
of playing chess in ones imagination.