Language games Flashcards
What did Wittgenstein argue?
Religious language is a language game by which we interpret the world. Words are defined by social context and do not have a single specific meaning.
What did Wittgenstein say about forms of life?
Language is a form of life and each form has its own rules which govern the meaning of statements in the context of it, for example, ‘king’ takes on a different meaning in the language game of chess then in the language game of royalty.
Explain Wittgenstein’s analogy of chess
The language game of chess contains words like ‘rook’, ‘knight’ and ‘bishop.’ These terms and the game’s rules only make sense to those who decide to adopt the language game of chess, if you do not, you will not understand it.
How did Wittgenstein apply language games to religious language?
He said that the test of meaning of a word is not the relationship between it an reality, but wether other people understand it. Misunderstandings occur when someone does not understand the rules of a particular language game. ‘God exists’ is a meaningful but unverifiable statement.
What is belief in god according to Wittgenstein?
Belief is god is part of the language game of religion, the whole language game (praying, worshiping etc) of religion is only open to you if you adopt the game, if not, the rules of the game will make no sense to you.
What does Wittgenstein say about the statements ‘I believe in god’ and ‘I do not believe in god’?
They are not contradictory statements, merely different perspective people can take. Trying to say something factual about god is nonsense, however, there is some sort of higher sphere.
How did Phillips clarify Wittgenstein’s ideas?
He clarified the idea that language games make it possible to talk about religion meaningfully, religious language is a language game as it is not grounded or criticized in reason. It is a system of its own.
What did Phillips argue about statements such as ‘god exists’?
They are not grounded in belief, but are statements of belief that can be understood only in the context of that belief.
What did Phillips say about god?
He is not logically prior to religion and talk of him only makes sense within religious language. If someone thinks that the purpose of praying to him is to obtain something, they have misunderstood to nature of religion and their belief has become superstition.
What does it mean to understand religious language for Phillips?
To understand it is to understand the place of certain statements in the life of the believer. ‘Jesus is the son of god’ would be meaningful to Christians, but not Muslims, whilst ‘god is the son of Jesus’ is not meaningful in any language game.
How is Wittgenstein successful?
He provides a powerful defense for the meaning of religious statements, they are completely meaningful for believers. Verification of meaning is internal to the religious language game and does not need justification by some external criteria.
What is one issue with Wittgenstein’s view?
He asserts that religious language games do not need evidence to support its statements. Why then do people loose their faith? Presumably something happens to show them their belief is wrong.
What else is wrong about Wittgenstein’s view?
You are fully justified in accepting any viewpoint you like, if a friend decides to start worshipping Winnie the Pooh as god Wittgenstein would say I would not be allowed to question him.
What is the problem with language games overlapping?
Both the religious game and scientific game make statements about the origins of the universe, yet in Wittgenstein’s view, it would be wrong to use the scientific viewpoint to criticize the religious one, but surely this is what any rational person would do?
Pass a final judgment on language games
Language game theory may appear superficially attractive, but offers no better explanation of the meaning of statements then analogy or symbol.
