I believe I understand 'language games' as a concept, — mcdoodle
But Witt's 'Philosophical Investigations' is also indeed a pawn, or possibly a knight or bishop, in the language game of philosophy. There's a certain social and intellectual milieu where such games are mostly played. — mcdoodle
In passing, it's interesting that your imagined example is of written language, whereas the Witt notion applies to all forms of language-exchange, and is rooted in talk about 'utterances'. — mcdoodle
I do believe language is sometimes rule-based and game-like, but I just don't see that becoming a general rule. — Mongrel
We want truth to show up here somewhere, right? — Srap Tasmaner
Truth is one of the rules of some of the games. ... It's not a rule of "Story-telling" or "Poetry". Thus one does not ask if the ring of power was really destroyed in Mt Doom, or in what way my love is like a red red rose. — unenlightened
Here, though, there are only words, ordinary words in ordinary language, even to explain to use how we ought to use meta-language. I don't see how that can mitigate any difficulties. I think philosophers on the whole do indeed try to explain the formal meaning they intend their terms to have, but there is a neo-Derrida in my head sometimes who can always find a connotation lurking in the most precise of definitions. — mcdoodle
In these cases, there is nothing game-like about language use. — Mongrel
Is not metaphorical truth another rule? — jkop
I think the consensus of the folks I've talked to in this thread is that the concept of language games is not as distinct from propositional meaning as I had thought it was. In fact, I can't really tell the difference. The examples given in this thread to try to point to the meaning of "language games" actually involved all the conceptual apparatus involved in deriving a proposition. — Mongrel
Truth is one of the rules of some of the games. It's the main rule of "Confession", and an important rule of "Philosophy", "History", and even "Biography". It's not a rule of "Story-telling" or "Poetry". Thus one does not ask if the ring of power was really destroyed in Mt Doom, or in what way my love is like a red red rose.
My understanding is that to talk of different language games is simply to say that we do different things with words, and the rules vary according to what we are doing. — unenlightened
I think the consensus of the folks I've talked to in this thread is that the concept of language games is not as distinct from propositional meaning as I had thought it was. In fact, I can't really tell the difference. — Mongrel
"So you are saying that human agreement decides what is false and what is true?" -- It is what human beings say that is false and true; and they agree in the language they use. That is not agreement in opinions but in form of life. — Witt, P I"
The approach you're taking is one many analytics have held on to, but I confess I find it difficult to understand why they do after Wittgenstein. It seems to say that a certain sort of talk, what Robert Brandom calls (at great length and density) the giving and receiving of reasons, is what all talk is about. It's not how they talk on my local bus, for instance. A philosophy of language has to cope with the talk on my local bus if I'm going to ride with it, as it were. — mcdoodle
"Language game" signifies that speech or writing has meaning in the context of human interaction. — Mongrel
Reference is not important; or better, all there is to reference is the use of a word or phrase in a speech act.So we need not expect words and phrases to have unambiguous references. — Mongrel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.