Language Games Flashcards
Proposed by…
Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Austrian Philosopher 1889-1951.
Argues that many of the traditional issues w/ philosophy are actually problems with language.
Ludwigs purpose of language?
Argued the purpose of language is to paint a picture to enable us to represent the world.
Conclusion: ‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent’
Language statements are not true of false for everyone…
Language statements, including religious ones, aren’t intended to be true of false for everyone.
But only for those who are within ‘that form of life’.
E.g. A scientific statement would be true of false for a scientist in a science lab, but not, necessarily for an artist.
By ‘form of life’ Ludwig means….
Science, mathematics, poetry, sport, religion etc.
Words and phrases used within their own subject area - The Game.
All forms of language in the game have their own rules concerning meaning.
Language primary use…
Not to make verifiable and falsifiable statements, rather it is to communicate a meaning amongst other players within that form.
Non-players cannot criticise the language of a player, one needs to understand the conventions and criteria.
Religious lang as meaningful?
Ludwig suggests that it is meaningful when understood within the context of its own language games.
Those who dont play the game will hear religious lang and misunderstand it.
He called this a ‘category mistake’
E.g. If a theist speaks of their soul and scientists tries to find it in his body, there is a clash of language games.
Conceptual Clarity
I can only contemplate the nature of games i play, seeking to describe them with accuracy.
I can only grow my understanding of a game.
Called conceptual clarity.
Religious language not to be analysed
Argued verificationists should not analyse rel lang.
Religion should not be spoken of or analysed in a scientific way.
Religious statements cannot be understood in a literal way, but still have profound meaning to those understand them.
E.g. Rellang causes issues- a soul is problematic as its non-physical and immortal.
‘God exists’ treated differently to theist and atheist.
For God exists.
Atheist may be playing the scientific language game, treating god as a scientific hypothesis, as Dawkins does.
Theist may perfectly well see God as a religious concept, not reducible to a hypothesis.
E.g. It’s possible for a believer to say that she does not believe in the God Dawkins rejects, as the God he rejects is not what they mean by the word ‘God’
Shift of meaning
Sacred texts written in particular times in history, yet, even when we use their same word in different context and cultures, meanings shift.
There’s no agreement of scripture as a whole, or parts of it.
Interpretation of the bible:
Literalists
Treat every sentence as true and cognitive word of God.
Represent the minority of Xian’s.
Interpretation of the bible:
Conservative
Accept the general message as from God but accept the tole of biblical scholarship.
The words may not be literally true but the message is authentic.
Interpretation of the bible:
Liberals
Am open approach to scripture, seeing it as a fundamentally human document to be interpreted in the light of our times.
For Cupitt, God is not something that exists…
But simply a reality within the community of faith.
This view is known as theological anti-realism, which isn’t concerned with the objective existence of god but with the meaning of God in ppls lives.
Don Cupitt and Peter Varys view
Non-cognitive view of language games.
Gods existence depends on the language games,
If there is no theist, there is no God.
Gods existence is dependant.
