4.3 Language games

Question 1

Wittgenstein’s argument

Answer 1

Argued that religious language is a ‘language game’ by which we interpret the world.

Developed the idea that religious language is not about stating facts but about an attitude or an interpretation of the world, and as such it has meaning.

Argued if we accept the logical positivist position: we are ruling out as meaningless the rest of language e.g. poetry, art, religion and life.

Concluded words are defined by social context and do not have a single specific meaning.

Question 2

A game with rules

Answer 2

Suggests that truth/reality is defined by language.
Language is a ‘game’ and each form has its own rules that govern the meaning of the statements in the context of the subject. E.g. the language of chess only makes sense to those who adopt the games language.

Like the rules of a game, the rules for the use of ordinary language are neither right/wrong, true/false but useful for the particular applications we give to them.

The members of any community develop ways of speaking that serve their needs as a group & these constitute to the language game they employ.

Question 3

Wittgenstein on religious language

Answer 3

Extends his idea’s of language games and applied it to forms of life such as religion. The TEST IN MEANING is not in the relationship between the statement and reality, but in whether others understand. Hence, statements such as ‘God exists’ are meaningful but not verifiable.

The statements ‘I believe in God’ and ‘I do not believe in God’ are not contradictory but merely different perspectives. They have a free option on using ‘God language’ or not.

Wittgenstein says trying to say something factual about God is nonesense.

Question 4

Wittgenstein Quote

Answer 4

The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.

Question 5

D.Z. Phillips

Answer 5

• Phillips clarified the idea that language games make it possible to talk about religous matters in a meaningful way.
• RL is a LG because it is not grounded or criticised in reason: it is a system of its own.
• Statements such as ‘God exist’ are not grounded in belief but expressions that can only be understood in the context of that belief.
• E.g. if someone thinks that prayer is a means to obtaining something, they have misunderstood the nature of religion & belief becomes superstition.
• Religious language expresses an emotional attitude and understanding of life.
• Talk of God only makes sense within religious practices.

Question 6

How convincing is Wittgenstein?

Answer 6

1. Provides a powerful defence for the meaning of religious statements.
2. Verification of meaning is internal to the religious language game and does not need justification by any external criteria.
3. Wittgenstein wrong in asserting games don’t need evidence to support their statements. Why do people lose their faith? E.g. the holocaust
4. I am fully justified in adopting any language e.g. a game in which Pooh Bear becomes the object of religious devotion.
5. Language games overlap - where religion makes statements about the origin of the universe, their is conflict in scientific statements.

Question 7

Wittgenstein on the game of religion

Answer 7

Belief in God is part of the language game of religion.

You either adopt the game or not.

If you do then the language game of religion is available to you.

Like chess, the rules of religion are self-enclosed - they make sense to the believer but not the atheist who has no use for the religious language game.

Question 8

Conclusion

Answer 8

Language game theory, although superficially attractive, offers no better explanation of the meaningfulness of religous statements than analogy or symbol