Wittgenstein and Language games

Wittgenstein revisit the views on language he set out in the “Tractatus” an offers a critique of them

In doing so he arrives at a different understanding of religious language. He argues that his picture theory of language misunderstands language; it looks for the meaning of language when instead we should look for the meaning in language.

Approached such as that of the logical positive regarded the role of philosophy as undermining what can and cannot be said

Wittgenstein came to to the understanding that philosophy was a second order activity – it should leave everything as is and it’s aim should be to understand what is said

Throughout history, many philosophers have argued that knowledge needs a secure foundation

They have tried to find a belief that is absolutely certain, thinking that without this firm starting point, we cannot truly claim to know anything

René Descartes argued that knowledge must rest on a firm and unquestionable foundation

To achieve this, he systematically doubted everything he could searching for something absolutely certain. One thing that we can be certain of is that we are thinking minds. This process led him to his famous conclusion. “ I think therefore I am.”

John Locke also thought knowledge must be based on firm foundations

However, he argued that these foundations come from sense experience, making his view an example of empiricism (we accurately observed information and come to a factual conclusion)

In contrast, Wittgenstein challenge this approach. He rejected the idea that knowledge depends on unquestionable foundations and argued that there are no absolute certain starting points for knowledge.

Challenges picture theory, as if we don’t know the world in an objective sense we cannot talk in a way to capture reality

There is no single, fixed way that words connect to reality

The view that objective knowledge about the world is unattainable is an antirealist view

Realism

Realism claims that a reality exists independently of our thoughts. Our ideas about things such as trees, planets, flowers, people and sheep correspond to that reality. These entities exist whether or not we perceive them. Therefore, it is possible to have an objective knowledge about the world. Knowledge is mind independent. Everything that we have knowledge of is due to encounter. Idea of a tree in the mind matches the idea of the tree in reality.

Realist believe, we can discover things about objective reality

The realist discovered truths. Language describes reality. For the realist, God is an external, objective, existent being. Religious believers are realist i.e. they are talking about God, which to them is a real being.

Anti-realism

The antirealist creates truths. What we know depends on the mind – our understanding is shaped by language and the human drive to create meaning. In this sentence, reality is formed through our interpretations. Antirealist question how our mind could ever grasp the true nature of reality itself. Knowledge is mind dependent.

Wittgensteins understanding of knowledge and perception led to his view that language cannot describe objective reality

The meaning of language comes from its context, have to look at the context the sentence is in then draw conclusions

Rabbit, the animal

Rabbit a bad batsmen

Wittgenstein suggests: “ the meaning of a word is its use in language”

Meaning derives from use and context

Language is dynamic

Words can have many different meanings. Meanings can change according to the situation.

Language exhibits meaning, sense and value relative to circumstance and use

Questioning, commanding, promising, obeying, and making ethical statement convey meaning, yet they do not represent or depict facts in the world

Wittgenstein argued that we are brought up within a particular perspective on the world, as we are shaped and educated in a specific “form of life”

Language expresses this form of life

Many of the claims we make require justification – for example the statement “ I can drive”

To support this, I might demonstrate my ability by taking someone out in my car or by showing a valid driving license

However, Wittgenstein argues that the most fundamental claims of language are groundless: they are not justified and do not need to be

Instead, we acquire them naturally as we grow up within a particular form of life, e.g. “ this is a hand” “ this is a table”

These are beliefs held without supporting evidence, yet they appear self evident within the form of life in which we are raised

A person believes in God because they are brought up within a framework where such belief is taken for granted. In the same way that basic claims about tables, hands, and pens are groundless and learned through upbringing within a form of life, belief in God can also be seen as a fundamental, groundless belief.

Believe in God does not depend on evidence of justification. Instead, the “ truth of faith” are shaped by what is accepted within a particular form of life, rather than by independent investigation

Different forms of life may not fully understand one another, nor can one judge another by its own standards

For instance, religious language differs from scientific language: in the scientific language gain, the use of evidence is essential, whereas this is not the case in religion

Use of rules from one language game cannot be used to find meaningfulness in another language game

Religious believers drawn on particular ideas to interpret and make sense of their world, just as people in other forms of life do. Certainly belief shape a believer’s entire outlook.

What instance, the belief that “ God loves us” influences how a believer understands the existence of evil and suffering. This reflects the early point that religious language conveys meaning but does not function to describe or represent facts.

To understand religious language, we must first understand the rules of the game – or form of life – in which it operates. This means examining how religious language functions within its own context.

These rules are neither correct nor incorrect; rather, they serve as tools for establishing meaning. We should therefore ask, “ what roles does this language play in the life of the believer?” from an external perspective, the task is to understand how the language is actually used.

Wittgenstein’s view of religion is antirealist. The truth of a realistic claim is based on correspondence.

Peter Vardy summarises; “ the truth of an antirealist claim is based on coherence: “ God exists” is true not because the word “God” refers to an everlasting or timeless substance, but rather because the phrase “God exists” has a use and a purpose within the form of life of the believing in community”

G E Moore goes as far as to claim that “God is nothing”

God does, however exist as a reality within the form of life of the believing community