Im as crazy as a Canadian Loon and
usually as drunk as an English Lord
so i sometimes have trouble stringing thoughts properly
togerther, but WHACK WHACK... a couple good slaps
in me face and let me see if I can be rational for a minute
So then the gist of Wittgensteinian argument against solipsism go like
Language cannot exist in an intellectual vacuuum.
That is, his claim is that meaning cannot exist without
some form of reciprocation.
Consensus or tacit agreement on the meaning of terms.
Reciprocation implies the existence of `another'.
Hence the existence of language means the existence of
(Thats why he goes through all that jazz (in Philosophical Investigations)
about the possibillity
of forming a `private language' and thoughts about personal `pains' and
experiences.. to show that such can have no meaning, except in a social context,
i.e. in relation to not just `another', but in relation to a large social context.)
Hence no solipsism.
Even in our consideration of philosophical issues such as
eg solipsism, there exists an evolving `body of philosophical
thought .. the whole Cartesian jazz.... sittin by the fire ,,how do i know
that I am not dreaming , or that i am deluded in being consious of this or that.?
Well you may well be deluded about many things (and i may be as well)
but a `prima firma', a first ground... one may may not be deluded that they are
either dreaming or not dreaming. And this is NOT because of old
Aristostles logic; but because you know what `dreaming' is;
Which you can only know from a social context.
I've read this over and its all gibberish right now; but I'll try
and do better if Im ever sober.
(I know you've posted a lengthy thought on this... I will get to it)
(Okay its only 6 in the morning, and i don't hafta work till 11 tonight, so I got me some serious drinkin to do quick)