Wittgenstein’s views on language games and forms of life

Question 1

his early philosphy

Answer 1

• served in trenches of ww1
• in warfare trenches is were he began writting one of his greatest works ‘tare tatus’ logico philosphicas

Question 2

the tractatus

Answer 2

• bible of lp
• he argued when we attempt to use language to do anythinhg other then say things about world we stray into realm of nonsense
• thus ‘god talk is evidentally nonsense’(ayer)

Question 3

his later philosphies

Answer 3

• ‘philosphical investigations’ (1953)
• 1 of the foremost critics of simplistic view of meaning- he attacked logical positivists n his own early work, argued it utterly failed to capture complexity of language
• eg when talk beauty, love, poetry, religion or cater neaning of life- we understand one another
• no such thing as meaning of a sentence since theyre many diff ways in which language cqn be meaningful
• language=process, developing n changing as its used by diff ppl n diff times in history
• chnages depending on context used in- eg ‘my words were taken out of context’
• ‘dont ask for meaning ask for the use’
• so all langauge is a game

Question 4

form of life

Answer 4

• ‘Lebensform’
• the wider context in which statements r being made

Question 5

language games

Answer 5

• turned away from LP ideas about meaning of words n instead focused on their use
• its antirealist theory, meaning he believed words had subjective meanings n asked for sense not meaning
• its non cog bc hes focused on purpose of language not if its a fact

Question 6

W quote on meaning of statement

Answer 6

‘the meaning of any statement is given in the way you use it’

Question 7

how language games work

Answer 7

• the language u use makes sense in the game ur playing n u cant externally criticise that use
• if not in game u cannot tell them theyre wrong
• rules of each game/meaning of words apply only to that game n when we enter new game we learn the rules
• its meaningless to those out the game, so aetheists cannot criticise religious ppl bc it wouldnt make sense to them as theyre not in the game
• language can be used incorrect/correctly w/in the game but its main use isnt to make verifable/falsifiable statements rather to communicate w players
• eg bat=diff in sport n biology

Question 8

w quote

‘dont look for the meanings….

Answer 8

….look for the use’

Question 9

conceptual clarity and difficulties of finding ‘meaning’

Answer 9

• philosophers task=find conceptual clarity
• for w there r only games
• i may play more games better than u but we will never precisely play the same set of games.
• i can only think about the games that i play + seek to have a better understanding w/in them.
• this is cc=its the only task for philoshers
• games dont reflect reality, they make reality
• worlds meaning to me is determined by the games i play

Question 10

religious significance

coherence theory of trut

Answer 10

• christians-word god=meaningful bc means something to them n coherent to them
• =part of his coherence theory of truth- something has meaning if its coherent to u
• god=meaningful to aethesists as well bc to believers god=existence to A’s=non-existence
• their definitions=diff bc playing diff games

Question 11

language games and sacred texts

diff apraoch to scritpure

Answer 11

• 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.

Question 12

language games and sacred texts

Answer 12

• problems w scripture, ack of evidence n unrealibability, seem to remind us that w appr is necessay
• a critical understanding of meaing of sentences in context of how theyre used, not their meaning
• w appr demands sensitivity to intention (y was it written), form of text (is it myth, truth, history, parable) n proper understanding

Question 13

Wittgensteinian fideism vs natural theology

Strength: Wittgenstein’s theory captures and explains the disconnect between religious and scientific meaning in a way that accords with important strands of Christian theology.

Answer 13

• fideism=view faith alone can gain knowldge of god, not reason
• to wf: religion=purely matter of faith
• its totally seperate language game to science which is matter of a posteriori reason
• Tertullian (3rd century) asked “what has Athens to do with Jerusalem”, implying that the philosophical reasoning of the ancient Greeks has nothing to do with Christian faith.
• as pascal put ‘god of philosphers’ that philosphers argue about isnt ‘god of abraham, isaac n jacob’
• fideism tends to be protestant

Question 14

Wittgensteinian fideism vs natural theology

Weakness: Language games leads to theological anti-realism

Answer 14

• when ppl say ‘god exists’ its not objective reality in science. instead j expressing participtaion in certain form of life
• most religous ppl would reject-they think god objectivally exists
• they claim rl=cognitive. it expresses belief on reality not merely ppt in social game
• aquinas had 5 inductive proofs on basis of empirical observation of gods existence + believed in them cognitively
• on his 5th way scientist/philosphers eg swinburne n polkinghorne created anthropic fine tuning argument
• science cant explain y laws of nature=fine tuned for human life
• gods design=best expl of that
• so W=wrong for thinking scientific meaning=radically distinct from religous meaning

Question 15

Wittgensteinian fideism vs natural theology

Evaluation defending Wittgenstein

Answer 15

• but we could respond on w behalf that this fusion of religion n science=a unique language game dissimilar to religiousn science games
• polkinghorne could be argued to not be playing scientific game since most scientist reject his ideas

Question 16

Wittgensteinian fideism vs natural theology

Evaluation criticizing Wittgenstein

Answer 16

• W fideism and fideism in general clearly goes too far
• rl canot completely reduce to expression of adherence to form of life
• it expresses cog belief
• we could say religous belief=false/unverifable/meaningless but we cannot justifably say there only non cog feeling but no acc religous belief

Question 17

weakness

circularity

Answer 17

• language games=circular
• where do we find meaning of word
• from language from which it takes it meaning
• so where does language game get its meaning?
• from words that make it up
• it seems for a given language to make snese, there needs to be an external link for it all to make sense

Question 18

weakness

choosing between games

Answer 18

• if we say theology n science=diff games, what can we say about discourse in which they attempt to debate w each other?
• what game=more important than another game? how do we choose?
• if theres only games, each equal status, then how do we treat language games itself?
• is it j LG LG?
• then its no more important or worht r time playing
• theres nothing outside it to legitimise it

Question 19

objection

ernest gellner

Answer 19

• words n things (1959) is a blistering attack on the theory
• he likens the obsession w meaning to those who r always sharpening their tools, but never using them
• he compares obsession w meaning of words w someone who takes apart a perfectly performing clock n then wonders why it no longer works

Question 20

strength:
non cog nature

Answer 20

• highlights the non cog nature of rl
• rl is often allegorical, metaphoric or simply talking of something outside of human empirical understanding

Question 21

strength

distinguishes from other types of language

Answer 21

• the language game theory accepts religious language as being distinct in its own game but with wider, eschatological, implications

Question 22

strength

Language games provide boundaries for the correct use of language.

Answer 22

each form of life has its own set of rules

Question 23

strength

Believers can be initiated into the rules of language.

Answer 23

the language is accessible and so can gain
meaning.

Question 24

strength

Language games defend language against criticisms
from other ‘forms of life’.

Answer 24

truth is understood as relative and statements
are to be judged against their context and not
on whether they are inherently or objectively
true or false.

Question 25

# weakness Language games do not allow for believers’ claims to be empirically tested.

Answer 25

it leaves statements unchallenged and unchallengeable opening the way for anything to be said and justified leading to meaningless statements.

Question 26

# weakness Religious language alienates those outside the game.

Answer 26

- If you are not part of a particular form of life you are not privy to the language and its protocols leading to misunderstanding. - The rules of the game cannot be changed to allow outsiders in. outsiders must adapt to the game and its rules not visa-versa.

Question 27

conclusion

Answer 27

As far as religious language is concerned, there is no single theory that satisfies everyone. Religious language is highly complex and, though it gives us no definitive truth, nevertheless it offers revealing insights into the nature of human existence and the quest to find, and understand, God. Peter Vardy observes: ‘In finding the value of religious language, the individual finds God. Believers do not discover religious truths – they make them.’

Question 28

# cognitive or non-cog D.Z. Phillips’ cognitive analysis

Answer 28

- an advocate of w pjilosphy is reductionist phillips - he argued philsophy n religion=2 diff groups n as a result both have diff definitions of god - he states that bc definitons=diff, u cannot be part of both - but theres so many relgous philsophers, so surely u can be part of both groups? - he aims to reduce everything down to simplest possible expl - he argues statements such as 'god exists'=not factual-theyre merely expressions of belief: - “Talk about God’s reality cannot be considered as talk about the existence of an object”

Question 29

# analogy or language games? aquinas on analogy

Answer 29

- its based on how limited r understanding is n how limited the language we have is to describe god - his focus is always on use similar to w - both wanted conceptual clarity n both wanted to understand how terms could be understood in their usage

Question 30

# analogy or language games? similarities and differences

Answer 30

- point made by herbert mccabe is there is a diff in assumptions between 2 - w assumes the use of language makes thought n activity - aquinas assumes language is given - we j have language n use it to express ideas - we use language to express a thought, whereas for w we play diff games to create diff thoughts - a= writing as a philosphical theologian, so he develops the analogy doctorines on basis of dealing w problems we have when talking about god - this is 'how can we use r language to find some way of speaking significantly about god' n w barely considered religion, j more general question on use of language n how we percieve it - both do, however, focus on use over meaning

Question 31

the question of truth

Answer 31

- the truth of what ppl in community believe, n whether those beliefs r true, matters - 'god' isnt simply a given term w meaning to faith community - its 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 he does

Question 32

general criticisms

Answer 32

* when applied to religion, it fails to understand religious belief and the existence of god as universal truths. for a religious person god would be in every game, which wittgeinstein does not allow. * unfairly rules out God’s existence * it doesn’t allow for cross-linking between groups * it doesn’t allow for atheist to theist conversions, when we know that such conversions happen

Question 33

differences: aquinas n wittgenstein

Answer 33

- A=13th century christian priest n leader - W=20th century jew n agnostic philospher - a=addressed writing to christians to explore what their concepts mean in philopshical way-to aid faith - w=didnt assume readers were religious n that christian beliefs r true - a=- rl has to be understood analogically - w=- rl has to be understood by game or form of life - a=cognitive - w=non-cognitive

Question 34

similarities: aquinas n wittgenstein

Answer 34

- share concerns about extent to which human languages adequate to convey ideas about god n both investigated how such language can be **meaningful** - belief god=**unknowable**-question of god=beyond limitation of what humans can know - RL has to be understood in particular way if its to have meaning