Language games

What did Wittgenstein argue?

• Religious language is an analogy by which we interpret the world. Words are defined by social context and do not have a single specific meaning.

• Religious language is a blik by which we interpret the world. Words are defined by social context and do not have a single specific meaning.

• Religious language is a language game by which we interpret the world. Words are defined by social context and do not have a single specific meaning.

What did Wittgenstein say about forms of life?

• A blik is a form of life and each form has its own rules which govern the meaning of statements in the context of it, for example, ‘king’ takes on a different meaning in the language game of chess then in the language game of royalty.

• Religion is a form of life and each form has its own rules which govern the meaning of statements in the context of it, for example, ‘king’ takes on a different meaning in the language game of chess then in the language game of royalty.

• Language is a form of life and each form has its own rules which govern the meaning of statements in the context of it, for example, ‘king’ takes on a different meaning in the language game of chess then in the language game of royalty.

The language game of—contains words like ‘rook’, ‘knight’ and ‘bishop.’ These terms and the game’s rules only make sense to those who decide to adopt the language game of chess, if you do not, you will not understand it.

How does Wittgenstein apply language games to religious language?

• He said that the test of meaning of a word is the relationship between it and reality, and not if other people understand it. Misunderstandings occur when someone does not understand the rules of a particular language game. ‘God exists’ is a meaningful but unverifiable statement.

• He said that the test of meaning of a word is not the relationship between it and reality, but wether other people understand it. Misunderstandings occur when someone does not understand the rules of a particular language game. ‘God exists’ is a meaningful but unverifiable statement.

—in god is part of the language game of religion, the whole language game (praying, worshiping etc) of religion is only open to you if you adopt the game, if not, the rules of the game will make no sense to you.

What does Wittgenstein say about statements like ‘I believe in god’ and ‘I don’t believe in god.’

• They are not contradictory statements, merely different perspective people can take. Trying to say something factual about god makes sense, however, there is some sort of higher sphere.

• They are contradictory statements, merely different perspective people can take. Trying to say something factual about god is nonsense, however, there is some sort of higher sphere.

• They are not contradictory statements, merely different perspective people can take. Trying to say something factual about god is nonsense, however, there is some sort of higher sphere.

—clarified the idea that language games make it possible to talk about religion meaningfully, religious language is a language game as it is not grounded or criticized in reason. It is a system of its own.

What did Phillips argue about statements such as ‘god exists’?

• They are grounded in belief, but are not statements of belief that can be understood only in the context of that belief.

• They are grounded in belief, but are statements of belief that can be understood only in the context of that belief.

• They are not grounded in belief, but are statements of belief that can be understood only in the context of that belief.

Phillips said god is not—to religion and talk of him only makes sense within religious language. If someone thinks that the purpose of praying to him is to obtain something, they have misunderstood to nature of religion and their belief has become superstition.

What does it mean for Phillips to understand religious language?

• To understand it is to understand the place of certain statements in the life of the non believer. ‘Jesus is the son of god’ would be meaningful to Christians, but not Muslims, whilst ‘god is the son of Jesus’ is not meaningful in any language game.

• To understand it is to understand the place of certain statements in the life of the believer. ‘Jesus is the son of god’ would be meaningful to Christians, but not Muslims, whilst ‘god is the son of Jesus’ is not meaningful in any language game.