Wittgenstein and Language Games

“whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.”

Wittgenstein believed that in areas that we lack knowledge, we should not speak.

Meaning depending on the scenario

* Wittgenstein suggested that ==the meaning of words is determined by the language game that the words are part of== (so the meaning of a word would depend on the scenario it was used in). 
* For Wittgenstein, words perform a function in a language; ==they do not signify an object.==

Chess Analogy

* For Wittgenstein, ==the use of language was like partaking in a game.== To use a word, you have to first understand how it works.
* Wittgenstein’s classic example was the game of chess. ==You might be told that a piece is called a 'king', but without understanding the rules of chess, you could never use the piece.==
* He also stated that ==to argue about how language is used is meaningless.== If you want to play the game, you must accept the rules. ==You cannot play chess if your opponent is trying to play checkers.==

Rules of language

* Wittgenstein suggested that language, and therefore the rules of that language, can be seen from ==two sides:==
* Those who are ==inside the game and therefore know the rules.==
* Those who are ==outside the game and therefore do not know the rules.==

Wittgenstein’s main point

* Wittgenstein’s main point is that ==the meaning of a statement is not to be understood by the steps you would take to verify or falsify it, but by the context in which it is used.== So **the verification and falsification principles are redundant.**
* Verification and falsification principles are unnecessary.
* Wittgenstein believes that there are different contexts in which language is used. These he calls language games.
* ==Religion is one== and science, for example, is another.
* **RELIGION IS A LANGUAGE GAME.**

Religious people play…

the religious language game.

The meaning of a word is not found by looking for what it refers to but by …

seeing the context in which it is used.

Why shouldn’t religious language be verified or falsified to Wittgenstein?

To uproot religious language, (which as it’s own language game) and try to verify it using scientific language is misunderstanding the way in which religious language is to be used.

What is the scientific language game about?

Reality, since it’s about evidence, experience and reason.

What is the religious language game about?

 Faith and social communities, conventions & emotions.

### Wittgenstein vs traditional Christian meaning i.e., Aquinas

__**Strength:**__ ==Wittgenstein accurately captures the way that meaning depends on social context.== It does seem true that the words we use and the meaning they have depend on the social situation we are in, i.e., the rules governing the language game we are participating in.

__**Weakness:**__ **Language games leads to theological anti-realism. Wittgenstein fails to capture religious meaning.** ==If Wittgenstein is right, it means that when a religious person says ‘God exists’ they aren’t actually claiming that in a scientific sense that there objectively exists a God.== Really, they are just speaking in a certain way based on how they have learned to speak by internalising a set of behavioural rules developed in a culture over centuries. However, ==most religious people would object that they really do mean that there objectively exists a God.== This point is most salient when considering the works of Aquinas who attempted to argue for the existence of God. ==Aquinas believes the proposition ‘God’s goodness is analogous to ours’ to be cognitively and objectively true. He doesn’t think he’s just following a social convention in saying so.==

__**Evaluation:**__ **defence of Wittgenstein:** It’s true that religious people claim to be describing reality when they say God exists, however ==perhaps their word ‘reality’ is informed by their religious language game and is different to the word ‘reality’ as used in the scientific language game.== So when religious people like ==Aquinas **(religious believers)** say ‘God exists in reality’, the word ‘reality’ is actually not referring to the scientific conception of reality.==

### **Whether Wittgenstein can explain the link between religion and science**

__**Strength:**__ Wittgenstein explains the link between religion and science. ==Religion is a matter of faith, a totally separate language game to science which is a matter of a posteriori reason.==

__**Weakness:**__ **Scientific and religious meaning can be linked.** ==Wittgenstein was wrong to think that scientific meaning is radically distinct from religious meaning. Arguably the scientific and religious language games can in fact be fused together.== There are **scientists who think that there are scientific reasons for belief in God.** For example, ==**Polkinghorne**== believed you could argue for God’s existence through science through the anthropic fine-tuning argument.

__**Evaluation:**__ **Defence of Wittgenstein:** However, we could respond on behalf of Wittgenstein that this ==particular fusion of religion and science is really itself a unique language game==, dissimilar to either the religious or scientific games. Alternatively, ==**Polkinghorne**== could be argued to ==not be playing the scientific language game since most scientists reject his ideas.==

### **Whether language games can explain religious differences & communication**

__**Strength:**__ ==Language games is the best explanation of religious differences.== It is difficult to explain why there are so many different religions that make incompatible truth claims. ==It could be that one of them is true, but then why do the others exist?== Whatever reason we give could equally apply to the one we think is true. ==It seems simpler to view religions as an expression of different language games or *‘forms of life’.*==

__**Weakness:**__ **there are elements of religious differences that Wittgenstein struggles to explain.**He claims one can only understand a language game by knowing the rules. So to understand religious language one would have to be a member of that religion. However==, it’s hard to explain how people manage to convert to a religion, then.== It’s also ==hard to explain inter-faith dialogue.== If we simply cannot understand the words involved in a language game we are not part of, then ==such things seem impossible, yet they clearly happen.==

__**Evaluation:**__ Arguably ==interfaith dialogue and conversion do not require complete proper understanding.== It seems true that only a Christian can truly appreciate the depth of what it means to have faith in Christ. When they share their faith with others through dialogue, including and up to the point of converting others, ==those they speak to will not have a full appreciation of that meaning until and unless they become Christian themselves.==

For example, ==an atheist can understand the idea of being grateful for someone who sacrificed their life.== So, from their atheistic language game, they can gain some meaning of faith in Christ, but only through the lens of their own worldview. Wittgenstein seems correct, however, that ==proper understanding is only possible between people who share a language game.==

### **Whether language games accurately describes how meaning works**

__**Strength:**__ ==language games does seem to accurately capture the way that social life works.== It makes sense to think of different types of social interaction as different games and that what differentiates them is their rules. ==For example, consider how you would speak in a job interview verses with friends verses with family.== Each social setting has rules governing what is acceptable and not acceptable. These rules will be different for different families etc, and rules are constantly changing as society changes. Nonetheless, it still seems that what ==people say depends on the particular language game they are speaking in.==

__**Weakness:**__ ==Dividing up human social life into different language games seems very messy.== Wittgenstein’s characterisation of language games is imprecise. For example, ==the ‘religious’ language game can be divided into different religions.== Those can often be divided, such as into the ‘Catholic’ language game. Yet, the way the congregation of one Catholic church speak to each other might be different to another congregation, perhaps due to the language game of the village/town they live in. ==It looks like language games actually overlap and connect in all sorts of ways which ultimately seem impossible to calculate or characterise.==

__**Evaluation:**__ **Defence of Wittgenstein.** ==Wittgenstein actually accepted that his theory meant that language often cannot be precise.== Words do not have determinate boundaries. This is because ==the social games we play are themselves indeterminate and constantly changing==. Scientific terms like ‘water’ can have a clear meaning as ‘H2O’. This is because scientific concepts refer to the physical world. If the rest of human meaning refers to the social world then it refers to social concepts, but they have fuzzy indeterminate boundaries. ==Wittgenstein pointed out how hard it is to define what a ‘chair’ is. It’s impossible to define in a way that completely separates it from all other possible things with no grey areas or edge cases. Yet, the word ‘chair’ has a meaning in our language nonetheless.==

\