4F RL as a language game

Question 1

Who is the philosopher associated with language games?

Answer 1

• Ludwig Wittgenstein

Question 2

What is a language game?

Answer 2

• An analogy that states that lang. = meaningful to those that use it within their own form of life
• The words we hear bear some resemblance to something within our exp. that relates to a reality which we can define

Question 3

What are the two understandings of truth?

Answer 3

• Correspondence

* Coherence

Question 4

Explain the correspondence understanding of truth.

Answer 4

• ‘Realist’ position
• Something = held to be true by virtue of its r.ship to the knowable world
• Empiricist view
• ‘The grass is green’ can be verified by determining what is meant by ‘grass’ and ‘green’
• E.g. The belief that the world is an oblate spheroid = true ∵ corresponds to the actual reality as verified by photographic, mathematic, geophysical evi.

Question 5

Explain the coherence understanding of truth.

Answer 5

• ‘Anti-realist’ position
• Truth determined by its interpretation within a specific group
• If a group decided that ‘red’ = correct adjective for grass, ‘the grass is green’ is not true ∵ does not cohere w/ their understanding
• ‘The grass is red’ = true for them
• Prior to 17th C., believed world = flat ∴ worldview = true; cohered with their understanding of the physical world

Question 6

Which understanding of truth is the use of language games?

Answer 6

• Coherence ∵ determines how lang. = meaningful to the people that participate in that lang. game

Question 7

What did Wittgenstein believe was imperative?

Answer 7

• That we understand which game we are playing when we use particular forms of lang.
• If we = unable to do this, inevitable that we could misunderstand how the particular game = played

Question 8

How is language used by people?

Answer 8

• To communicate their specific game

Question 9

Where does the meaningfulness of language come from?

Answer 9

• The context within which the form of lang. = used ∴ provides meaning for those within the game, even if the meaning ≠ clear to those outside the game

Question 10

How can someone understand a language game?

Answer 10

• Each game can be ‘learned’ as long as the rules are explained + understood
• In learning the rules, we understand the sounds that we hear/words we read, and understand the rules of the game

Question 11

Give a quote from Wittgenstein.

Answer 11

• “the meaning of a word is its use in language”

Question 12

What did Wittgenstein mean by ‘family resemblances’?

Answer 12

• Games have many elements in common, e.g “board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games”
• “We see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail”

Question 13

How did Wittgenstein use the example of a painting to explain language games?

Answer 13

• When we listen to words and sounds, they have no meaning unless placed in context
• The same is true of a painting: it is simply “patches of colour on the canvas”, but we appreciate what the picture is related to, and can make sense of it
• Random sounds become sounds that mean something as they are relatable; we ass. them with their respected meanings

Question 14

What did Wittgenstein realise?

Answer 14

• That he was presenting a philosophical view of how lang. = used
• Not to influence its use
• “Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundation either. It leaves everything as it is.”

Question 15

What is the first challenge to language games? (non-cognitive)

Answer 15

• As it is non-cognitive, the usual challenges apply, e.g. cannot be held up to objective scrutiny

Question 16

What is the second challenge to language games? (Rush Rhees)

Answer 16

• Rush Rhees, one of Wittgenstein’s friends, noted that the strength of his theory rests upon the assumption that the link btwn ‘language’ and ‘games’ = strong (the strength of Paley’s analogy = essential if it is to succeed) ∴ made three challenges:

1) Lang. = about making sense to other people, not just following a set of protocols agreed upon
2) Whilst it is poss. to explain the concept of a game to someone who has never exp.d a game before, it is not possible to explain the concept of language to someone who has not spoken or heard language before. An explanation of lang. has to be given in lang. - not the same for games
3) You do not need to understand the game in order to recognise that you are playing a game; when a person uses lang. it is not enough to just know what they are doing - they must be able to understand

Question 17

What is the third challenge to language games? (objectivity)

Answer 17

• If ‘God’ has no objective meaning, how can we talk meaningfully about God?
• If the word ‘God’ = subject to a language game, it implies there is no objective, definitive, cognitive way to use the word.
• ‘God’ means different things to theists and atheists
• Language games do not allow for an adequate meaning to ‘God’
• Anti-realist approaches to ‘God’ undermine attempts to define G, e.g Anselm - TTWNGCBC, Malcom - unlimited being, Descartes - supremely perfect being

Question 18

What is the fourth challenge to language games? (exclusivity)

Answer 18

• Each language game has its own rules which are pertinent to it and do not extend, in their entirety, to any other game
• Not poss. to communicate in a meaningful way btwn two users of diff. lang. games ∵ they are unique
• If neither group can lay claim to an objective truth (unlike the realist position), how can they find a middle ground?
• Inclusivity of meaningfulness within each lang. game would inevitably lead to an exclusivity of meaningfulness when the two groups try to communicate