Wittgenstein's Language Games (1)

Question 1

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

Answer 1

• 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’

Question 2

What are Language Games for Wittgenstein?

Answer 2

• 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

Question 3

Give two examples of language games in use?

Answer 3

• 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

Question 4

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

Answer 4

” ‘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

Question 5

What is the task of the Philosopher according to Wittgenstein?

Answer 5

• 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

Question 6

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

Answer 6

• 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

Question 7

Was Wittgenstein interested in religion?

Answer 7

• 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

Question 8

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

Answer 8

• 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

Question 9

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

Answer 9

• 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

Question 10

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

Answer 10

• 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

Question 11

How do literalists read scripture?

Answer 11

Treat every sentence as both true and cognitive

Question 12

How do Conservatives read scripture?

Answer 12

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

Question 13

How do Liberals read scripture?

Answer 13

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

Question 14

How do fundamentalists read scripture?

Answer 14

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

Question 15

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

Answer 15

• 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

Question 16

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

Answer 16

“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

Question 17

What are Non-Cognitive ideas of language games?

Answer 17

• 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

Question 18

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

Answer 18

“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’

Question 19

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

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

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

Answer 20

• 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?

Question 21

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

Answer 21

• 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”

Question 22

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

Answer 22

• 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

Question 23

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

Answer 23

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

Question 24

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

Answer 24

“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

Question 25

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

Answer 25

“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

Question 26

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

Answer 26

• 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

Question 27

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

Answer 27

“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

Question 28

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

Answer 28

• 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