[goatlover]

This works only if one accepts that philosophical problems (itches) can be dissolved by analyzing ordinary language use to find out where philosophers, scientists or lay people have abused language to create the problem. One example the article gives is of failing to notice the disanalogy of people hiding thoughts behind the curtains of their faces.

> Then someone reports what he thinks, he is neither describing what he thinks, nor is he describing anything he sees.

So what is the person describing? If I was thinking it would be nice to take a break and walk around, and you ask what I was thinking, so I tell you we should take a break to stretch our legs, am I not telling you what I was thinking? This sounds like a denial that I was thinking anything at all in order to block objections to the private language argument that we do have private thoughts and feelings we can tell other people about.

Maybe the "disanalogy" came about because people do have thoughts which are only made public upon telling others. We're not a telepathic species, and I'm as sure about thinking as I am about anything else in experience, including the world and other people.