Talk:Ostensive definition

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics / Philosophy of language

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Philosophy: Language / Analytic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of language
	Analytic philosophy

This article seems to get distracted a little, and meanders off into the nether regions of semiotics and urban legend.

Rosa Lichtenstein 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree with Ms Lichtenstein. If you compare this article to extensional definition and enumerative definition, this seems to contain a lot of material that hasn't much to do with the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.4.240 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

"(...) in which Wittgenstein asks if it is possible to have a private language that no one else can understand." - That is not quite true. Wittgenstein states that everyone has some kind of a private language (a beetle in the box) which no one else will understand. 131.211.232.229 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Wittgenstein states that everyone has some kind of private language (a beetle in the box)..." - I don't think this is right. The beetle in the box is a feeling, such as pain, in Wittgenstein's analogy, not a private language. He argues that one cannot label this privately and refer reliably to it later Paul1andrews (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic