Font size
WorksheetsLanguage games
Total questions: 15
Worksheet time: 10mins
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.
(a)
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.
(a)
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.
(a)
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.
(a)
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.
How is Wittgenstein successful?
He provides a powerful defense for the meaning of religious statements, they are completely meaningful for nonbelievers. Verification of meaning is internal to the religious language game and does not need justification by some external criteria.
He provides a powerful defense for the meaning of religious statements, they are completely meaningful for believers. Verification of meaning is internal to the religious language game and does not need justification by some external criteria.
He provides a powerful defense for the meaning of religious statements, they are completely meaningful for nonbelievers. Verification of meaning is external to the religious language game and does not need justification by some external criteria.
Which of these is an issue with Wittgenstein?
He asserts that religious language games do not need evidence to support its statements. Why then do people loose their faith? Presumably something happens to show them their belief is wrong.
He does not allow for verification and falsification.
The believer’s sense of meaningfulness is an insufficient criterion to dismiss verification and falsification as meaningful.
What else is wrong with Wittgenstein’s view?
You are fully justified in accepting any viewpoint you like, if a friend decides to start worshipping Winnie the Pooh as god Wittgenstein would say I would not be allowed to question him.
Flew- all of the negations turn god into nothingness.
We can’t really say anything about god.
What is the problem with language games overlapping?
It does not allow for religious statements to be seen as cognitive and meaningful.
Both the religious game and scientific game make statements about the origins of the universe, yet in Wittgenstein’s view, it would be wrong to use the scientific viewpoint to criticize the religious one, but surely this is what any rational person would do?
Bliks do not exist and cannot be verified or falsified.
Pass a final judgment on language games
Language game theory may appear superficially attractive, but offers no better explanation of the meaning of statements then analogy or symbol.
It gives more meaning to religious statements then analogy and symbol.
It ultimately fails as it argues god into nothingness.
