“But do you mean that one man couldn't play a game of chess with himself &
without anyone else knowing that he did? What, would you say, he should do in order that we may say he is playing || to be playing with himself a private game of chess? Any Just anything? – Would you just say he must go through certain private experiences which I can (only) indirectly describe by saying that they are the experiences which he has when playing a certain game chess (in the ordinary sense of the word)? I suppose you would say e.g. that he imagines a chessboard with the chessmen on it, then || that he imagines certain moves etc.. And on being || if you were asked what it means to imagine a chessboard, you would explain it by pointing to a real chessboard or, the || say to a picture of one and analogously if you were asked what does it mean to imagine cast¤ling etc. || the king of chess, a pawn, a knight's move etc.¤ But what if you explained: But Or should you have said: He must go through certain … . But will any what private experiences are there & will any of them do in this case? For
instance feeling hot? But you don't understand me. || No. || “No! The private experience I am talking of must have the multiplicity of the game of chess: But remember what we have said of || again does he recognize two private experiences to be different by a further private experience & this to be the
[Private experiences in fiction.]
same in the different cases? Mustn't we say in this case that we can't say anything whatever about private experiences & are in fact not even entitled to use the words experiences at all? What makes us believe that we are is, that we really think of the case in which we can describe his private experiences describing different kind || ways of playing chess in one's imagination.