This is probably the best on-line version: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/ Anthony Kenny's book 'Wittgenstein' is probably the best published hard copy introduction.
Can you refer me to a good summary of Wittgenstein's private language argument?
Well, if anyone can show philosophy has any use at all, other than to confuse, I'm prepared to listen.
"What it is important to recall is that W was experimenting with various ideas, all the while challenging himself and others not to take a dogmatic view of language, or of anything else." What about philosophy?
They only resemble Kripke's in so far as we both look to Wittgenstein. However, he adopts a sceptical view of rule-following whereas I adopt no view. I'm sorry I failed to answer your second question. I do not know how I managed to miss it. I take no view about the possibility of there being such a character since to do so would be to do some a priori science.
Well, what I was trying to get at, is that your arguments are very similar to Kripke's, who's interpretation of Wittgenstein's works have been questioned by some scholars... But anyways, you never answered my second question...
Well, I am not a supporter of any 'view', so there is nothing for me to reconcile. And I'd like to see the texts in W's work that support this: "That is, textual support can be found for two apparently conflicting exegetical claims: Language is essentially social. "It is conceptually (even if not psychologically) possible that a lifelong Crusoe (i.e., a human being isolated from birth) should employ some kind of linguistic system and follow rules in so doing." What it is important to recall is that W was experimenting with various ideas, all the while challenging himself and others not to take a dogmatic view of language, or of anything else. Many of those who comment on W either forget this or they ignore it for whatever reason.
I have a question for you: According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, one can highlight two contradictory ideas within Wittgenstein's work: "That is, textual support can be found for two apparently conflicting exegetical claims: Language is essentially social. It is conceptually (even if not psychologically) possible that a lifelong Crusoe (i.e., a human being isolated from birth) should employ some kind of linguistic system and follow rules in so doing." I assume you are a proponent of the 'community view' of language... So my question is, how do you reconcile the second point with the first? And what do you have to say to those who propose that a real-life Crusoe could exist?
