Wittgenstein d.1951

I couldn't really wrap my head around Wittgenstein's philosophy of language games. The best I could do was interpret it as having to do with ambiguity of meaning. A particular word, e.g. "bug" means an insect in biology and in computer parlance it means an error in a code. If a biologist and a computer scientist were then to have a discussion on bugs then it's not that hard to see how productive or rather unproductive the discussion is going to turn out. The biologist and computer scientist would spend their entire lives talking about different things but believing they were talking about the same thing. A philosophical nightmare! No?

Are Witgensteinian language games essentially about ambiguity? A language game x uses a word in one way but another language game y uses it differently. Since the use is different the meanings are different.

Perhaps my take on Wittgenstein is the children's version of an idea that was written for mature adults. Whatever the case I have the gnawing suspicion that ambiguity has a role in language games.

2. The rejection of the private mind, hidden from public view. — Banno

Rejection of private language. Not clear if he thought there was a mind.

Are Witgensteinian language games essentially about ambiguity? — TheMadFool

No. There are only different uses.

The majority of posts in this forum give ample examples. — Banno

I fear so, yes. Most of us are content--even glad--to remain in the fly-bottle.

I think the later Wittgenstein has contributed to a more careful linguistic analysis, which can lead to using language, especially in philosophy, in a more precise way. I think that we have to be careful about how we emphasize the phrase "use is meaning," because there are quite a few uses that are incorrect. In fact, Wittgenstein is criticizing philosophers for their use of words and/or propositions. Use has to be seen in the proper context, i.e., in the social context, but even this is easily misunderstood. I don't have any confidence that Wittgenstein will be clearly understood in a wider social context.

One area of criticism is that there is a limit to language in terms of metaphysics. He still held onto this idea in his later philosophy. I think this is and was a mistake.

One area of criticism is that there is a limit to language in terms of metaphysics. He still held onto this idea in his later philosophy. I think this is and was a mistake. — Sam26

Please explain what you mean, thanks.

He had some important points to make, but his therapeutic project failed; people still do the kind of philosophy that Wittgensteinian therapy was supposed to "cure."

We can argue back and forth all day about whether or not he's correct in his view of traditional philosophy. But the proof, I think, is in the pudding. 69 years later and the philosophers continue to philosophize. If philosophy is an illness, it appears to be terminal, for all of Ludwig's well-intentioned mental oncology.

He had some important points to make, but his therapeutic project failed; people still do the kind of philosophy that Wittgensteinian therapy was supposed to "cure." — Pneumenon

I don't read him like that. I never thought he was commanding people what they're allowed to do.

I don't read him like that. I never thought he was commanding people what they're allowed to do. — jacksonsprat22

Certainly not commanding, but if he was able to do what he said he wanted to do, then you would no longer want to do philosophy after reading him.

Certainly not commanding, but if he was able to do what he said he wanted to do, then you would no longer want to do philosophy after reading him. — Pneumenon

I never got that from him. Care to explain?

Well, the cure is one that must be self-administered. Many are loathe to be cured. They're like anti-vaxxers in that respect.

The key idea in the later Wittgenstein is that our language is all right as it is; we do not need an ideal language. Careful attention to real world language will dissolve (not solve) philosophical problems; the fly will be out of the fly bottle and we will see the world rightly. PROBLEM: Deep controversy is already present in discourse before the philosopher arrives on the scene. Religion makes metaphysiical claims, and political discourse involves contested concepts, such as 'person' and 'marriage,'

PROBLEM: Deep controversy is already present in discourse before the philosopher arrives on the scene. Religion makes metaphysiical claims, and political discourse involves contested concepts, such as 'person' and 'marriage,' — Phil Devine

Okay. Are you saying this is a problem for Wittgenstein? How?

Well, the cure is one that must be self-administered. Many are loathe to be cured. They're like anti-vaxxers in that respect. — Ciceronianus the White

Quite so. Wittgenstein is completely correct that there are no philosophical problems.

But if everybody is just gonna ignore him, then it doesn't help to say that. And in that respect, his therapeutic project has failed.

But if everybody is just gonna ignore him, then it doesn't help to say that. And in that respect, his therapeutic project has failed. — Pneumenon

I really don't know why you keep saying that. Wittgenstein is not King of Philosophy.

A language game is just something that we do with words that also invovles stuff in the real world, and that can be treated in a somewhat discrete way (discrete, not discreet).

So the shop keeper example from PI, the builder calling "slab", and so on. Nothing too formidible. The point was to draw attention to the way we use language as part of our every day activities.

Most of us are content--even glad--to remain in the fly-bottle. — Ciceronianus the White

The sheer joy of proving that I am the only observer in the world, for example. Or that everything had a beginign, or that it didn't. That you can't get something for nothing, or that you can. Or even that emotions are concepts.

One area of criticism is that there is a limit to language in terms of metaphysics. He still held onto this idea in his later philosophy. I think this is and was a mistake. — Sam26

Interesting. I see him as advocating silence on metaphysical issues, and as this as one of his views that did not change over the course of his life.

his therapeutic project failed; people still do the kind of philosophy that Wittgensteinian therapy was supposed to "cure." — Pneumenon

That's like saying medicine's therapeutic project failed because there are still sick people.

The key idea in the later Wittgenstein is that our language is all right as it is; we do not need an ideal language. Careful attention to real world language will dissolve (not solve) philosophical problems; the fly will be out of the fly bottle and we will see the world rightly. PROBLEM: Deep controversy is already present in discourse before the philosopher arrives on the scene. Religion makes metaphysiical claims, and political discourse involves contested concepts, such as 'person' and 'marriage,' — Phil Devine

The problems are there before the philosopher arrives on the scene, sure. The role of philosophy is to sort through conceptual confusion in order to show how the problems arise; to show the fly the way out of the trap. So as a quick example, because we see causality every day, some say everything has a cause; and off they go looking for a first cause or an infinite regress. They take an every day use and misapply it.

So I disagree; every day language is not, for Wittgenstein, alright - that view would be better attributed to Austin.

But if everybody is just gonna ignore him, — Pneumenon

My cynical side uses this to explain why he is not popular amongst professional philosophers. They do not wish to do themselves out of a comfortable career.

That's like saying medicine's therapeutic project failed because there are still sick people. — Banno

I think this is a tad uncharitable. Wittgenstein wants to cure a specific illness. The vaccination campaign against smallpox succeeded and there's no more smallpox.

Perhaps we could say that Wittgenstein's project is ongoing, in that it has to dissolve problems as they arise, and problems will always keep arising. But only a minority of professional philosophers are on board with this project, and it looks as if it will stay that way. I think you're right about the reason why.

I think that, assuming we agree on what Wittgenstein's therapeutic project is, it's helpful to ask what motivates it. Does it just see professional philosophy as a waste of time for a lot of really smart people? Is the point just to make the intelligentsia more productive? That seems wrong. It ought to be something more significant than that.

That seems wrong. It ought to be something more significant than that. — Pneumenon

Didn't Wittgenstein himself remind us how little has been achieved when all the problems of philosophy have been (dis)solved?

Late Wittgenstein remains one of the most influential philosophical contributions of modern times.

Interesting. I see him as advocating silence on metaphysical issues, and as this as one of his views that did not change over the course of his life. — Banno

I think he believed metaphysics was incoherent.

Late Wittgenstein remains one of the most influential philosophical contributions of modern times. — h060tu

He's the most important philosopher of the 20th Century.

He's the most important philosopher of the 20th Century. — jacksonsprat22

Most important? I don't know about that. One of them. 20th century had dozens of important philosophers. I think Werner Heisenberg was more important than Wittgenstein. But Wittgenstein was definitely the most important in the Anglo-American analytic tradition.

I think Werner Heisenberg was more important than Wittgenstein. — h060tu

Heisenberg would not call himself a philosopher. Most know him as a physicist.

Heisenberg would not call himself a philosopher. Most know him as a physicist. — jacksonsprat22

And? Science was a form of natural philosophy. Newton called himself a philosopher, so did Galileo. Words are arbitrary descriptions.

They call Wittgenstein a philosopher, but he essentially rejected all of the classical issues philosophy deals with.