Wittgenstein's Language Games (2)

Question 1

Quote Anthony Kenny on the similarity between Wittgenstein’s Language Games and Aquinas’ Analogy?

Answer 1

“the capacity to use language”
- Aquinas points out analogy is used yo say something positive about God
- There is no ‘right’ meaning, just the ‘use’ of language, Witt and Aquinas are concerned with language in use, not their literal meaning

Question 2

What difference between Wittgenstein and Aquinas does McCabe point out between language games and analogy?

Answer 2

• Points out the difference in assumption made
• Wittgenstein assumes the use of language CREATES thoughts and activity; precondition of thought and reality is language
• Aquinas believes language is a given; we use language to express ideas and thoughts we already had
• For Aquinas we use language to express a thought, for Wittgenstein the language game determines the thoughts we have

Question 3

What is the difference in the questions both Aquinas and Wittgenstein are attempting to answer?

Answer 3

• Aquinas speaks from the POV of a philosophical theologian, he asks whether we can use language to say something significant about God
• Wittgenstein however asks the question of how we use language more generally and how we perceive it in the world around us

Question 4

How does Ernest Gellner criticise language games in his ‘Words and Things’ ?

Answer 4

• Attacks them for having no use, nor any need
• He attacks the assumption that language needs to be dismantled to get a better meaning or understanding
• He compares Witt’s obsession with language and the meaning of it with someone who disassembles a clock and wonders why it doesn’t work
• In the preface of his book Russel likens the obsession with someone who is always sharpening their tools but does not use them

Question 5

How do language games suffer from the problem of circularity?

Answer 5

• If we ask the meaning of a word, we must consult the game we are playing
• If we ask the meaning of a language game, we must consult the words that make it up
• So then we go in a circle, where do language games and words get their meaning?
• There has to be an external link which gives meaning to the whole, this external link is unexplained and stops the autonomy of language games

Question 6

What is the problem of choosing between language games?

Answer 6

• D.Z. Phillips mass the post that we cannot justify scientific nor religious discourse as they are different games
• If each game has their own respective merits, how do we decide which one to play?

Question 7

Can people playing different language games communicate with each other?

Answer 7

• If Phillips is right that no games can be justified then it seems opposing games, e.g science and religion cannot communicate
• If they are their own discourse and game, how do they debate with each other and why, it seems pointless
• This would mean Dawkins would never debate religion nor God, which is obviously flawed

Question 8

How does Patrick Sherry suggest we can justify playing one game over another? (Quote)

Answer 8

“we can certainly discuss particular ones, e.g Christianity or astrology”
- He argues an atheist may engage in the game of Christianity due to it having a level of support, but the same person can write off astrology as rubbish
- Sherry develops the idea that picking between language games can be done if we can justify choosing one over another

Question 9

Do language games provide or answer the question of truth?

Answer 9

• If each language game possesses its own truth, e.g sea of faith Don Cupitt, due to the game they are playing, how do we treat the concept as a whole?
• If there is no truth, are we simply playing the ‘language game language game’
• There seems to be no way to legitimise and prioritise this as the ultimate theory

Question 10

What does A.J. Ayer argue about language games?

Answer 10

• Argues if each language game possesses its own reality, then why do we not talk about fairies and witches
• He argues that there should be a rationale by which we deem entire language games as false (cognitively)
• He argues we need to prioritise the game that contains the laws of physics, not the one which contains mythical creatures

Question 11

What is Kai Nelsen’s argument about ‘Wittgenstein Fideism’?

Answer 11

• Argues that language games make reality, intelligibility and reason ambiguous as they can only be understood within their own discourse (within the game)
• If this is the case then no outside position can criticise a discourse (as they are outside of the game), faith then becomes fideism
• Phillips asserting religion being beyond understanding strengthens this point that it is fideism (CC Regard as heresy)
• External justification is needed outside of the games for objectivity, but Witt himself said nothing exists outside of the games