NationStates Jolt Archive

Am I alone in finding his later enlightened philosophy on language games extremely confusing, I just don't get what he's saying (although the supposedly accurate sheets I get given on him are hardly reader friendly, he might not have put it so complicated).

I mean I think he's saying at first that all language is essentially equivocal (probably the wrong word) and that you shouldn't look for any essence behind language but rather look at it's function (seems sort of the same to me). I don't get how he manages to extend that to make all language systems equal, as in moral language is equal to scientific language, the language of toddlers has equal meaning as the language of mathematics. Can one of the resident NSG philosophers help me out here?

Basically his work can be summed up as "ich bin ganz pretentious". Hope that helps.

Different types of languages are equal in the sense that their meaning is determined by their use; rather than by, say, their grammar or innate relations between words and referents.
His language games are primarily a tool to show that theories of language always fall short of explaining the whole picture.
Mind you, I only started a course on Wittgenstein last week; so anything I think I know I picked up on the fly during other courses.

Basically his work can be summed up as "ich bin ganz pretentious". Hope that helps.That's not really the feeling I got from reading the preface of the investigations (nor the other parts that I read, but really the preface explains a lot about how the book should be read).

That's not really the feeling I got from reading the preface of the investigations (nor the other parts that I read, but really the preface explains a lot about how the book should be read).
I'm a philistine about philosophy, give me a break.

Basically his work can be summed up as "ich bin ganz pretentious". Hope that helps.

I wouldn't call him pretentious, I mean he did make very convincing arguments to explain how religious language is meaningless in his early life, but then he suddenly rejected all that.

His language games are primarily a tool to show that theories of language always fall short of explaining the whole picture.

This is something I don't get. Also, what's the difference between looking at the function of a word and finding its essence? And how does this idea contradict his earlier work about how religious language is meaningless?

This is something I don't get.I haven't got my notes on me, but if I recall correctly, Wittgensteins approach in the investigations consists of three parts
1) explaining the theory he's examining (e.g. Augustine's account of language acquisition)
2) determine situations (language games) to which it may applies
3) show that there are scenarios to which it doesn't apply, and that therefore the theory is inadequate as a (full) explanation.
This gets repeated a number of times (the book isn't divided in chapters by Wittgenstein himself, but there is a common division of the first part into 5 chapters, and the first three follow this pattern. The division can probably be found online somewhere)

Also, what's the difference between looking at the function of a word and finding its essence?I would say it's function (usage) depends on the situation, whereas its essence wouldn't. Words aren't intrinsically meaningful, but made meaningful by the context in which they're used.

And how does this idea contradict his earlier work about how religious language is meaningless?It doesn't necessarily contradict it. About the Tractatus, Wittgenstein said the most important things was what he didn't write. Meaning he values all those 'meaningless' things more than the meaningful (or at least that's one interpretation I heard).
If I had to guess, I'd say that only the objective things are meaningful (in the sense of the Tractatus), but the subjective things are the more important (to the individual experiencing them); however they are something you can't talk about (when language only relates to the objective things).
(But I have to note again I'm no expert on Wittgenstein; and my current course isn't even treating the Tractatus)

I would say it's function (usage) depends on the situation, whereas its essence wouldn't. Words aren't intrinsically meaningful, but made meaningful by the context in which they're used.


But isn't this just stating the obvious?


It doesn't necessarily contradict it. About the Tractatus, Wittgenstein said the most important things was what he didn't write. Meaning he values all those 'meaningless' things more than the meaningful (or at least that's one interpretation I heard).

But in what way would his idea on language games help him find the 'meaningless' things 'meaningful'?


If I had to guess, I'd say that only the objective things are meaningful (in the sense of the Tractatus), but the subjective things are the more important (to the individual experiencing them); however they are something you can't talk about (when language only relates to the objective things).

So this is going back to the theological challenge and about how it's impossible to describe God etc... but in this case Wittgenstein still has belief in him (I think) anyway.


(But I have to note again I'm no expert on Wittgenstein; and my current course isn't even treating the Tractatus)

Fair enough, you're explaining it better than my philosophy teacher I think, unless you're wrong. :p