Language Games

• Language Games (Wittgenstein)


  Wittgenstein noted the importance of context in language. He argued that language is used similarly to games. There is similarities between phrases we use in different contexts. These are similarities or family resemblances but to understand properly what the language means we must understand the rules of the 'game'. Consequently those outside a language game cannot criticise.
• Later developments of Wittgenstein

  Don Cupitt argued that all language including religious language is non-cognitive because 'true' or 'false' have no universal meaning. Language games do not comment on or describe reality but rather each game has its own reality.

  Phillips disagreed with Cupitts conclusions about God. Phillips claimed God was a reality but beyond the scopes of philosophy. He argued language could be both cognitive and non-cognitive. Both types of language are meaningful it is all context dependant.
• Wittgenstein argued that “Philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday”, and, “whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent.” These quotes (although misunderstood by the verificationists) suggested that focusing on language would provide a way forward for philosophers
• Language games are exclusivist


  Wittgenstein’s theory of “language games” suggests that only those involved in religion can discuss it meaningfully. Therefore, the theory of language games is relatively exclusive. It also denies the possibility of different cultures or religions communicating effectively about ‘similar’ concepts. It seems odd that two theists of different Abrahamic faiths are unable to talk meaningfully about the concept of God.
• Talk about God and religion is meaningful to those who are in the same language game and understand the rules. For example 'God is good' is meaningful to those in the Christian 'game' but not for the atheist 'game'.
• Meaning depends on the group in which the language is being used. No one from outside the group can criticise the language.
• Religious language, according to Phillips, is beyond the discussion of fact (cognitive). It can be meaningful whether it is cognitive or not as it depends on the form of life in which it is spoken.
• Anything could be meaningful as long as there is an agreed understanding. For example, in the 'unicorns exist' game it would be meaningful to say unicorns exist. But unicorns don't exist.
• Peter Geach argues that language game theory is a circular argument - the word takes its meaning from the game, but the game takes its meaning from the words, etc etc
• According to Cupitt, language games show that religious language is non-cognitive and therefore does not have any objective meaning outside of a religious form of life.
• Weaknesses of Wittgenstein view on religious language:

  Believers use language to express truth and reality, so Wittgenstein's approach doesn't work.

  Since religious language cannot be criticised it could lead to dangerous beliefs based on faith alone (Fideism).
• Strengths of Wittgenstein's view on religious language:

  Religious statements have meaning but depend on context.

  Language games do not reflect reality but make it; reality is subjective.

  There can be no criticisms of religious language you can only play a different 'game'.
• Religious texts need to be interpreted by those who understand them and have a use for them. This is much better done in the context of a faith community and there is less opportunity for misunderstanding.
• Wittgenstein's focus on the use and context of language can also be applied to religious texts. They should be interpreted non-cognitively, within the form of life of the believing community. Texts should not be interpreted as cognitive, universal truths.
• Language games show that the meaning of words depends on their context. Cupitt argues that since religious language isn't true outside of its game it is non-cognitive.