RL -> Wittgenstein Flashcards
Language games
Wittgenstein turned away from the logical positivists’ ideas about meaning of words, and instead focused on their use. He said:
‘The meaning of any statement is given in the way you use it.’
It is an anti-realist theory, meaning he believed words had subjective meanings, and asked for sense, not meaning. It is also non-cognitive because he is focusing on the purpose of language, not if it is a fact. The language you use makes sense in the “game” you are playing and you cannot externally criticise that use. If you are not in the game, you cannot tell them they are wrong. The rules for each game, or the meaning of the words, apply only to that game, and when we enter into a new game we learn the rules. It is meaningless to those outside the game, so atheists cannot criticise religious believers for saying meaningless things because it wouldn’t make sense to them, because they are not in the game. The language we use in chess makes no sense in discussion about cricket. A bat is a different thing in sport and biology.
Conceptual clarity and difficulties of finding ‘meaning’
The philosopher’s task is to find conceptual clarity. For Wittgenstein there are only games. We cannot get outside the games and ask the real meaning of words. This would be playing the lexicography game. So we can only play games, more games and be better at them. I may play more games better than you but we will never precisely play the same set of games. I can only think about the games that I play and seek to have a better understanding within them. This is, to Wittgenstein, conceptual clarity, which he says is the only task for philosophers. Even when we speak of meaning we are using that word in the conditions of the game we are playing. It is also important to note that language games do not reflect reality, they make reality. The world we know is expressed in our games. The world’s meaning to me is determined by the games that I play.
Religious significance
In the Christian group, the word God is meaningful because it means something to them, it is coherent to them. This comes under Wittgenstein’scoherence theory of truth– that something has meaning if it is coherent to you.So does that mean that the word God is only meaningful to Christians? Not really. Wittgenstein actually argues that ‘god’ is meaningful to atheists in terms of language as well as believers. To one group it means existence, to the other, non-existence.
An obvious easy place for this discussion is this difference between athiests and religious believers. Their definitions of God are different because they are playing different games. The terms have different meanings. We must take care to analyse their uses, or we may misunderstand their context. It seems fair, then, that a believer could say that she does not believe in the God that Richard Dawkins rejects, because his God is not what she means by God.
Language games and sacred texts
Is the text of a scripture only really meaningful in its original language? Is its advice only applicable in the context that it was written? Even when we use the same word in many languages, meaning shifts. Every language has its limitations. There are different approaches to scripture:
Literalists: every sentence is true and cognitive
Conservatives: accept the general message from god but accepting the role of biblical scholarship. Not every word is factually true, but the message is authentic.
Liberals: an open approach to scripture, a human document needing interpretation to fit our times. Inspiration from God.
The problems with scripture, the lack of evidence and unreliability, seem to remind us that Wittgenstein’s approach is necessary. A critical understanding of the meaning of sentences in context of how they are used, not their meaning. A Wittgensteinian approach demands sensitivity to intention (why was it written), form of text (is it myth, truth, history, parable), and proper understanding.
D.Z. Phillips’ cognitive analysis
An advocate of Wittgenstein philosophy isreductionist D. Z. Phillips, and in an exam you can usually talk about the two together. Phillips, however, argued that philosophy and religion are two different groups, and as a result both have different definitions of God. Phillips plainly states that because the definitions are different, you cannot be a part of both. But there are so many religious philosophers, so surely you can be part of both groups?
As a reductionist, Phillips aims to reduce everything down to the simplest possible explanation. He argues that statements such as ‘God exists’ are not factual – they are merely expressions of belief.
Analogy or language games?
Aquinas’ idea of analogy is based in how limited our understanding is and how limited the language we have is to describe God. His focus is always on use, similar to Wittgenstein. Both wanted conceptual clarity and both wanted to understand how terms could be understood in their usage.
Similarities and differences
A point made by Herbert McCabe is that there is a difference in assumptions between the two. Wittgenstein assumes that the use of language makes thought and activity.
Aquinas assumes that language is a given. We just have language and use it to express ideas. We use language to express a thought, whereas for Wittgenstein we play different games to create different thoughts. Aquinas is writing as a philosophical theologian, so he develops the analogy doctrines on the basis of dealing with the problems we have when talking about god. This is ‘how can we use our language to find some way of speaking significantly about God’ and Wittgenstein barely considered religion, just a more general question on use of language and how we perceive it. Both do, however, focus on use over meaning.
Circularity
Language games are circular. Where do we find the meaning of a word? From the language game from which it takes its meaning. So where does the language game get its meaning? From the words that make it up. It seems for a given language to make sense, there needs to be an external link for it all to make sense.
Choice
If we say theology and science are different games, what can we say about the discourse in which they attempt to debate with each other? What game is more important than another game? How do we choose? If there are only games, each equal in status, then how do we treat language games itself? Is it just the language games language game? Then it is no more important or worth our time playing. There is nothing outside it to legitimise it.
Truth
The truth of what people in a community believe, and whether those beliefs are true, matters. ‘God’ is not simply a given term with meaning to the faith community. It is central to faith that he may not exist. His non-existence is possible, which is what any thinking believer accepts, which is why they have faith that he does.
