Wittgenstein's Language Game Theory

What was a firm belief that Wittgenstein held?

There are some things in life that we just can't understand

What did Wittgenstein support in his early days?

A faux-verification standpoint -> argued we should not talk about what we cannot understand "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent"

How did Wittgenstein amend his earlier philosophy?

Language Game Theory

Did Wittgenstien ever apply his language game theory to religious language?

No -> later philosophers extrapolated/applied his ideas

Why is Wittgenstein a significant philosopher?

Was one of the first to really abandon the scientific approach to language

What did Wittgenstein say about language and its form?

Language is a "form of life" -> form of a living organism (changing + adapting to different situations)

What concepts did Wittgenstein challenge?

Traditional theories of meaning which were intent on pointing to something exterior in order to give it meaning (e.g VP + its reliance on observation)

What view did Wittgenstein have of language and meaning?

- "If we had to name anything which is the life of the sign, we should have to say that it was its use"

- Meaning isn't derived from what a thing is (or whether it can be observed) but by how people use the word + whether they derive use from it

How did Wittgenstein argue meaning should be investigated?

- Must "look + see" the variety of uses to which the word is put -> are misled by the uniform appearance of our words into trying to understand their meaning

- "Don't think, but look" -> looking must be done differently in each particular case (not generalisations)

- Must look at how its used

What is Wittgenstein's analogy of tools in a tool box?

See multiple tools with multiple functions (when thinking of tools in a toolbox) -> never think to question this (we limit words to just one job)

"Functions of words are a diverse as the functions of these objects"

How do words become meaningful?

From the circumstances in which they are said + how they're combined with other words -> "one cannot guess how a word functions; one has to look at its use"

What is language made up of?

Many different + related parts which work together in a countless number of possible variations (not one whole) -> create ever changing + evolving impression of how we use words

What is language to Wittgenstein and why?

- Arbitrary (in a scientific sense) -> words don't point to permanent things in the physical world

- Groundless -> meaning can be ascribed with flexibility (depends on how we use it) -> truth is relative to the beliefs + values of the believers (similar to bliks)

These are language games

What does Wittgenstein mean by language games?

- Points at the rule-governed character of language (not strict/definite)

- General idea that people follow rules/conventions when using language

- Cannot give a final/essential definition of game -> cannot find "what is common to all these activities + what makes them into language or parts of language"

Why does Wittgenstein compare language to games?

- Hard to pin down exactly what they share in common (e.g monopoly, chess, stuck in the mud)

- Language games refer to smaller subsections that make up language + are linked by a common theme

What did Wittgenstein argue about games?

They are made up from the different situations in which we use language

How does Wittgenstein use the example of chess to explain language game theory?

- Can use language such as a king being limited to one square movement (makes sense) -> outside of chess this language is meaningless

- Just because words don't have meaning in all situations, that doesn't mean chess-talk is meaningless (as a whole) -> is just its own game

- Many language games + we are all engaged in multiple games at the same time (cannot escape language)

What does Wittgenstein mean by family resemblance?

- Words can have multiple meanings + words can be created within groups

- The same word will resemble each other in different contexts, but not be identical -> is just the context that surrounds it that is different (e.g sick)

What happens as long as people are playing a particular (language) game?

It has meaning -> is significant to those people

What condition does Wittgenstein have for language?

Language must be public (2<) -> not kept private

How did DZ Phillips apply the language game theory to religious language?

- Religious language is a way of defining the rules of the game of religion

- "God is love" isn't factual but just tells us under what circumstances the term "God" is to be used correctly

- Reality of God doesn't lie in the abstract issue of whether God exists but in the words/practice of religion

- What God is is defined by the language game of faith (the game defines the rules of how/when to use religious words)

How did Peter Donovan apply the language game theory to religious language?

- Religions aren't games (fun + time fillers) BUT language games offer a way to understand their meaning/significance

- "It is only when we're engaged in the Jewish + Christian religious language games that the question 'was Jesus the Messiah' can be properly understood... answered differently within each of those 2 language games"

- Same is true for the actions, gestures + forms of worship which make up religious behaviour -> they mean what they do because of their connections with other parts of the religious system

- Misunderstanding/confusion is caused by statements being taken away from their context + analysed without this

How did Norman Malcom apply the language game theory to religious language?

- All language games are equal in meaning

- Rejected the view that scientific exploration had a role

- "Religion is to university people an alien form of life. they don't participate in it + don't understand what it is all about"

What is a similarity between the language game theory and Aquinas' belief about language?

Look at how language is used in certain contexts (not whether they can be used to talk about certain things)

What are the differences between the language game theory and Aquinas' belief about language?

Aquinas - language is a given -> is something that we have + can use in a meaningful way to express ideas on a variety of things (philosopher bias -> writing from the POV of a philosophical theologian)

Wittgenstein - language is a game we play in order to determine the thoughts we formulate (generally looks at what language does + how it is perceived)

What are the strengths of language game theory?

- Incorporates more than just propositional statements as it allows for emotions etc

- Greater level of flexibility -> language is part of a community + can change with the community

- Gives genuine meaning to believers + can clearly discuss beliefs

- Explains why people often struggle to have real discussions if they come from different language games

- Reflects how language is used in culture by different people over time (not limited to scientific views)

What are the weaknesses of language game theory?

- Are we banned from finding meaning in a language game that we are not part of?

- Is scientific language also groundless + arbitrary (despite being statements of facts)

- All language is arbitrary + lacks any real world reference point

- Lacks justification for religious language -> could be used to justify extremism/superstition

- Can never criticise another language game as lacking meaning -> removes academic debate/discussion

- Removes link to empirical testing -> language can't be verified (not factual basis)

Why did Gellner disagree with Wittgenstein?

- Compared W's obsession with the meaning of words to someone who takes apart a perfectly working clock + then wondering why it doesn't work

- Russell -> compared obsession with meaning to a person who is obsessed with sharpening tools but not using them

Why did Ayer disagree with Wittgenstein?

- If each language game has its own reality, could W argue that a committed, meaningful discussion could be had about fairies + witches

- Just because someone uses the term "bewitched" doesn't mean magic truly exists -> need the superiority of physics over talk of magic spells

Why did Sherry disagree with Wittgenstein?

- Choosing between language games makes it difficult for us to talk about things (e.g Christian saying their game is better than astrology)

- Athiest might disagree with both but consider Christianity more seriously if astrology is not worth the effort

- The belief (+ truth of beliefs) matter when playing language games

- God means different things for a Christian/athiest -> surely there must be one meaning when playing the game