Language Games

Language Games

What is this?
1. anti-realist
2. Wittgenstein
  1. advocated a 'functional theory' of meaning
  2. Language games are not intended to be true or false
    1. Statements are only for those who are within that form of life
  3. All language is a game, it is not about making universally true statments
    1. It is to communicate to other players of the same game
  4. Language is meaningful in the context of its own language game
  5. A non-believer will find religious language meaningless because he or she is not in that game
  6. The primary purpose is not to make factual statements
  7. The player of one 'game' cannot criticise another game
  8. We can know what a word means when it is in a context
  9. Learning language is like learning a game
  10. You just accept the rules that have been agreed by everyone else
  11. Language makes statements which are groundless
    1. Defintions are 'groundless beliefs'
      1. They shape the way we understand the world
        Religious belief shapes the way the world is seen in a similar way
3. Gilbert Ryle
  1. 'category mistake'
    1. To enter another game without learning other rules and conventions
    2. Hence you cannot criticise another game
  2. Each game has its own 'criteria of coherance'
4. Religious Language has the ability change the meaning of words
  1. So it is a game
  2. Langauge is context dependent
5. Religious Language is a part of a way of living
  1. No point of outsiders reading their own meaning of the relgion
Non-Cognitive
1. Statements that can be interpreted in a anti-realist way, such as symbols, metaphors and ethical commandments. Statements understood by the community. The truth or falsity depends on the context.
Strengths
1. Peter Donovan
  1. Language games are a useful way of understanding how the language of religion has a special meaning
  2. Misunderstanding and confusion are likely to result if statements are taken away from their context
2. non-cognitive
3. Provides boundaries for the correct use of langauge
4. Language games defends language from any criticisms
5. Religious language is meaningful
6. Braithwaite
  1. Bliks
    1. Not trying to express knowledge
      1. it has practical value
  2. Religious Language is to express ethical adherence to a moral way of behaving
7. D.Z Phillips
  1. Because language games contain their own rules they can't be criticised
Weaknesses
1. Peter Donovan
  1. Denies any need for religon to be making claims about the real world
  2. Relion is more than a special way of using Language
  3. Language Games suggests instead of being religous it is a matter of playing with words
    1. Religion is more than special way of using langauge
    2. It is not isolated from other huamn activities
    3. It makes claims about world & life
2. Does not allow for believers' claims to be empically tested
3. Alieneates those outside the game
  1. Rules can't be changes to let outseiders in
4. Interfaith dialogue cannot take place
5. Religious langauge is not totally isolated
  1. There is 'common ground' between real life ad religous language
    1. What is a religous believer bacame athiest
      1. Can they talk about the language
  2. Non-believers are able to understand religous langauge
    1. Consistency does not mean truth
6. Non-believers maight be able to understand religious language, they have an objective view of the use of religous langauge
7. Religious believers want their language to be outward looking rather than inclusive
8. The idea of truth becomes subjective
  1. This can justify anything within a language game i.e. Nazism, KKK. ISIS
    1. Futhermore this cannot be critcised
9. Conceptual Relativism
  1. You do not know if a certain view is actually true or false

Nächster

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von muminaharshad vor mehr als 9 Jahre