In the private language argument (PLA), Wittgenstein raises a paradox, namely that a sensation is not a something, but not a nothing either. McDowell argues that Wittgenstein unnecessarily eliminates inner sensations. By contrast, McDowell insists that sensations are perfectly good somethings, namely concept-involving objects. Hao Tang praises McDowell’s idea that Wittgenstein’s target is the myth of the inner given, namely the private object, but he criticises McDowell’s interpretation of Wittgenstein as eliminating inner sensations. On his interpretation, Wittgenstein does not eliminate (...) the sensation as a concept-involving object. In this article, I advance two main arguments: (1) Wittgenstein objects to inner sensations being concept-involving objects because he rejects the model of “object-designation”; and (2) despite (1), Wittgenstein does not eliminate sensations nor does he deny that we can conceive of them; rather, he thinks that people conceptualise sensations in ways other than as concept-involving objects. (shrink)

The lingering mystery of John Rawls’s reflective equilibrium is that its nature is unclear. Rawls at times suggests he is merely describing people’s conceptions of justice, whereas at other times he implies that his reflective equilibrium is a way to justify his conception of justice. Faced with seemingly conflictual passages, most scholars privilege the justificatory ones. However, I argue that this is not an effective strategy because understanding how the descriptive and justificatory aspects of reflective equilibrium fit together is the (...) key to unlocking its nature and actual force. This paper compares Rawls’s method to the philosophical method of later Wittgenstein in his so-called private language argument to argue how the descriptive and justificatory aspects of Rawls’s reflective equilibrium fit together. In my view, both philosophers’ methods are descriptive clarifications of our unclear conceptions. However, their clarification is not just descriptive; they also aim at their readers achieving enlightenment. Importantly, I argue, that enlightenment offers us justification of the conception resulting from their clarification. Hence, their methods are justificatory as well. Finally, I claim that this way of understanding reflective equilibrium makes us realise how Rawls could respond to a prominent objection to it. (shrink)