Language games

    Cards (8)

    • Wittgenstein
      • Noticed the importance of context when we use language games .
      • Argued that philosophy and science didn't need to follow the same rules.
      • To use language effectively we must look at the way we use it, a bit like to play a game we first need to understand the rules of the game.
      • The phrase ‘a king can move one square in any direction’ is a phrase that makes perfect sense in the context of chess but doesn’t make sense or have any meaning if we say it at the royal palace.
      • Language is only understood if we understand the context in which it is spoken.
    • Wittengenstein
      • Trying to impose scientific rules on to philosophy or ethics is attempting to apply rules from one game to another.
      • It doesn't mean that moral language is meaningless, it just means you are playing 2 different games.
      • Those outside the language game cannot criticise it.
      • The meaning of our language is based on its context, there is no ultimate rule about how language is used, it always depends on the context.
    • Wittengenstein
      • The question about whether God talk is meaningless can be answered only from within a language game.
      • In the logical positivists ‘game’ religious statements cannot be empirically verified so become meaningless, whereas in the ‘theists’ game, religious statements like ‘God is love’ are meaningful 
      • Concludes that misunderstanding occurs in philosophy.
      • The meaning of a statement is to be understood not by the steps you would take to verify or falsify, but by the context in which it is used.
    • Religious statements are non-cognitive. They have meaning for those who belong to a religious form of life and play by the rules of a religious language game.
    •  If we were to say that ‘God allows suffering to develop our character and we will be rewarded in heaven, this fits with the Christian language game. It has meaning for those who play this game. However it does not fit with the Buddhist language game, so it not meaningful to them.
    • Meaningfulness is subjective to the language games and the context must be understood.
    • Strength's
      • Defends religou lsnaguge from challenges of verification and falsification. Shows that religious language does have meaning fo those who belong to a religious form of life
      • This reflects the reality – religious people do believe that the religious assertions that they make have meaning, even if those outside of the language game do not.
      • Promotes pluralism and respect for other peoples views – there are many valid truths, that can all co-exist together
      • Language games accurately captures the way that social life works. We can see that different social settings have different rules
    • Weaknesses
      • Language games leads to theological anti-realism. When someone says ‘God exists; they don’t just mean within their form of life, they mean objectively. Wittgenstein makes it subjective.
      • Dividing up human social life into different language games could be very messy.
      • Makes religion too subjective and individualistic– theists do believe that God objectively exists not just within their own form of life.