Wittgenstein's Language Games (1) Flashcards

1
Q

Where do we find most of Wittgenstein’s work on language games?

A
  • In his later works, in ‘The Blue and Brown Books’ and ‘Philosophical Investigations”
  • He gave up the view that we could construct and master logical language, which he previously thought in his ‘Tractus’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are Language Games for Wittgenstein?

A
  • The idea that that no word has an absolute, nor literal meaning, we can only asses its use within a game
  • When using language it is specific to the game you are playing, and its meaning alters due to the game (context basically)
  • When you learn language of a certain subject you are participating in a language game
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Give two examples of language games in use?

A
  • A bishop in chess is not the same as a bishop in real life, when we refer to the bishop whilst playing chess we are playing the language game of chess, when referring to a literal bishop we are playing a different game
  • Sayings in households, e.g some households may use ‘not as well as he might be’ to describe someones who’s passed away, some may use it as them being ill - both different language games
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Quote Wittgenstein in his ‘Philosophical Investigations’ talking about language games.

A

” ‘sentence’ and ‘language’ has no formal unity”
- There is nothing outside of the games to find the ‘real’ meaning behind words
- To contemplate literal definitions is merely the game of lexicography, we cannot escape the games

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the task of the Philosopher according to Wittgenstein?

A
  • Wittgenstein believes the philosopher must analyse differences and similarities to make sense of the activities that people are doing when they play language games
  • Philosophers must seek conceptual clarity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What does Wittgenstein believe about language and reality? Are they linked in any way?

A
  • He believes language games don’t reflect reality, but actually make up reality as we know it
  • He believes we build our reality based on what games we enter, e.g ‘meaning’ will have a different definition to the religious person and to the poet
  • Our reality and meaning of words is constructed in the games we enter and play
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Was Wittgenstein interested in religion?

A
  • He was fascinated by religion, but only gave 3 lectures on religion in 1938
  • Only 20 pages of notes are available of these lectures
  • He had a Catholic funeral
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

How can Wittgenstein’s language game result in a contradictory position when considering religion and God?

A
  • If Witt is correct, the believer is playing the theist game, when they say ‘God exists’ it is a reality for them in the language game they play
  • But the atheist sees ‘God exists’ as empty with no meaning as they are playing the atheist language game
  • This puts us in a contradictory position, where God is both a reality and not a reality at the same time
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

How can the Language Games create conceptual confusion between the believer and the non-believer?

A
  • The Atheist, e.g Dawkins, may treat God as a failed scientific hypothesis, so the atheist uses the scientific game
  • The Theist can also reject on these grounds, they do not believe God is at all a scientific hypothesis
  • This shows how everyones playing their own individual games and it creates conceptual confusion about broad ideas such as God
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

How do the Language Games fare with the involvement of faith in religious life?

A
  • Faith is used by different speakers in different ways, e.g different prayers have different meanings across religions
  • Some may see faith as ‘life-changing’ and the non-believer may see it as ‘superstition’
  • Language games assert faith only makes sense and can be seen in the context of the language games
  • If we do not do this we attack people for the wrong reason, faith and religion are all in context of the language games
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

How do literalists read scripture?

A

Treat every sentence as both true and cognitive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How do Conservatives read scripture?

A

Accept general message from God, but does not argue very word is factually true, just accepts the authentic message

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

How do Liberals read scripture?

A

Very open approach to scripture, seeing it as a human document to be interpreted in the light of our times

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

How do fundamentalists read scripture?

A

Insists on the literalness and inerrancy of the Bible in ways not previously encountered

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What are the five fundamentals of faith outlined by the Niagra Bible?

A
  • Inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the absolute accuracy of scripture
  • The virgin birth of Christ
  • Belief that Christs death was atonement for sin
  • The bodily resurrection of Christ
  • Historical reality of Christs miracles
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How does Origen argue against literalists and fundamentalists? (Quote)

A

“who is so foolish as to suppose God… planted a paradise in Eden”
- He argues scripture is not be understood cognitively, story of Job, Psalms and Genesis are so obviously no true in a cognitive sense
- Ancient historians always told stories to make their point, e.g Herodotus in his ‘The Histories’ so to treat scripture as cognitive is absurd
- Consistent with Witt’s approach that everything must be considered in context and the game which it is playing

17
Q

What are Non-Cognitive ideas of language games?

A
  • Idea that no sentence is true or false according to language games
  • Everything is a form of expressivism and there is no objective reality, just expression of an emotion
  • This is argued through the fact that that conventional true and false do not apply to contextual language games
18
Q

What is Don Cupitt’s non-cognitive reading of Wittgenstein? (Quote)

A

“not suppose God to be a substance”
- In his ‘sea of faith’ movement he argues for theological non-realism, God is not an objective reality but refers to ones own spiritual meaning and significance
- There is no God ‘out there’ but there simply exists a God in the mind and heart of the believer
- The language game of faith is non-cognitive, it is not true or false, but simply is understood by the believers with no need for ‘objective truth’

19
Q

How does Don Cupitt’s non-cognitive reading of Wittgenstein provide support for their being nothing outside of the language games?

A
  • Cupitt’s non-cogntivist reading of Wittgenstein asserts everything is uttered within the language game of faith
  • This means the reality of God is not objective, but is created by the language game and God is found within the game
  • Nothing exists outside of the games
20
Q

What notion of Wittgenstein’s does Cupitt himself seem to go against?

A
  • Wittgenstein himself asserts we should study relationships between the language games
  • In this non-cognitive understanding of God and the games mean we cannot analyse relationships
  • If all games are non-cognitive and only exist in the reality of the believer, how do we establish relationships?
21
Q

What does D.Z. Phillips believe the task of the philosopher is? (Quote)

A
  • Agrees with Wittgenstein, the task of the philosopher is not to comment on truth of religious statements but clarify their meaning in the discourse of faith
  • “to ask what it means to affirm or deny that a man is talking to God”
22
Q

What is D.Z. Phillips’ cognitive reading of Wittgenstein?

A
  • Argues that there is an objective truth within the existence of God and there is an objective reality beyond the games by which we are confronted
  • Phillips argues we can look at objective meanings, grammar of religious sentences
  • For Phillips reality exists outside go the games, for Cupitt they exist within the games
23
Q

Quote D.Z. Phillips in his ‘From Fantasy to Faith’

A

“No further explanation can be found”
- Argues sentences about God’s existence are in the religious forms of life, not a scientific one

24
Q

Quote D.Z. Phillips on Theological non-realism, how does he use this to support his cognitive interpretation of Wittgenstein?

A

“Theological realism is as empty as Theological non-realism… confused philosophical and theological debate”
- Phillips goes against the non-cognitive interpretation
- Asking ‘Does God not exist’ is not reducible in other existential ways

25
Q

Quote Gareth Moore in support of D.Z. Phillips non-cognitive understanding of Witt.

A

“not yet settled what the reality of God consists in”
- Moore denies the non-cognitive reading of Wittgenstein
- Asserts God is an unsettled objective reality of the world and truths exist outside of the games

26
Q

How does Wittgenstein himself reject the non-cognitive view in his ‘Lectures on Religious Belief’ ?

A
  • A student asks whether religious statements were simply expressions of feelings of the believer (non-cognitive)
  • Uses the e.g of a friend who is convinced they will see their friend in a form of afterlife, is this factual belief or a mere expression of the emotion, e.g love
  • “It says what it says” - Witts response, he does not appeal to the emotion and the non-cognitive way
27
Q

Quote Mikel Burley on the language games, what view is he positing here?

A

“just to look, see and describe”
- Perhaps Burley thinks we are overcomplicating it by trying to choose cognitive or non-cognitive, maybe there is a middle ground of cognitive AND non-cognitive

28
Q

Expand on Burley’s notion of interaction between cognitive and non-cognitive reading of the language games?

A
  • Some language games truth and falsity matters, e.g when asking a geographer the capital city of France, but some they don’t, e.g asking the meaning of a poet, a cognitive reading of ‘Flanders Fields’ would provide little to no meaning
  • The same way one aspects of the religious language games, e.g prayers and hymns do not have cognitive aspects, and some, e.g literalist scripture does
  • Understanding Genesis as cognitive is flawed
  • Perhaps the interaction between the two in religious language is required, not one reductionist view point such as Cupitt’s