Nonsense, Wittgenstein seems to argue. If no one else could understand how you feel even in principle, then neither could you. If you can talk about it then people will understand, because we use the same words the same way. And when we don't, it's not because of some kind of epistemological solitary confinement - it's just a misunderstanding, and there are language games for resolving those too.
You don't have to read philosophy to know that "no one else could possibly understand how I feel" is actually a common sentiment, though. The truly therapeutic part for me was the idea that even though there may be problems that can't be solved, they can sometimes be dissolved. (i.e. seeing the problem statement itself as nonsense)
The private language argument had a similar effect for me, but more-so in dissolving the insistence some people make over subjective vs. objective. Through the private language argument, you see that that opposition is really more about personal vs. public. Wittgenstein does not dissolve the personal; but the private language argument does dissolve the kind of fundamentally private subjectivity that people often reference or hold in that debate on subjective vs. objective.
Wittgenstein was, IIUC, one of the founders and leaders of analytic philosophy, which I personally had very little respect for since it essentially punted on the questions that philosophy has dealt with since it's creation; the "non-sense" you mention.
Then, I ran across Angus Graham's writings on Zhuangzi (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zhuangzi/). Zhuangzi was a better analytic philosopher than any of the modern analytics that I've seen.