What?

No, don't bother. — Banno

:chin:

Please kindly read and educate yourself on Wittgenstein before offering these half-baked made-up critiques, thanks.

Wittgenstein is trying to undermine the idea that for something to fall under a general concept, that thing must satisfy identifiable conditions which are at once both individually necessary and jointly sufficient. Whilst in the vague notion of "having an objective" you may or may not have identified a necessary condition for what it takes to count as a game, you have certainly not identified a sufficient condition. As StreetlightX's examples show, many things that have objectives simply are not games, even if one can make a game out of them.

4. If R is a dox then A is an essential feature of dox

A material conditional that Wittgenstein would reject and provides plenty of grounds for rejecting. You seem simply to be gainsaying Wittgenstein, not arguing against him.

Please kindly read and educate yourself on Wittgenstein before offering these half-baked made-up critiques, thanks. — StreetlightX

...says the world-renowned, multiple award winning, well-published author and the only living fully certified authority on Wittgenstein and almost everything else (by his own reckoning). :joke:

To begin with, I must confess my poor understanding of his concept of language games and his belief that meaning is use is still unclear to me. — TheMadFool

Hey you said it buddy. Everything else you wrote is simply this, delaborated.

A material conditional that Wittgenstein would reject and provides plenty of grounds for rejecting. You seem simply to be gainsaying Wittgenstein, not arguing against him. — jkg20

The argument you're commenting on is flawed as Banno already curtly dismissed. Thank you for your criticism. As StreetlightX said, my idea is half-baked which on the whole makes me unhappy but the half bit is reasonably comforting. :smile:

Hey you said it buddy. — StreetlightX

So, your comment wasn't based on any analysis of the issue. Just took my words and rephrased it. Even a child could do that.

What you wrote is beneath serious engagement - the same non-engagement you gave to the subject you're writing on.

What you wrote is beneath serious engagement - the same non-engagement you gave to the subject you're writing on — StreetlightX

If it is beneath your serious engagement I have a serious problem on my hands. Am I that stupid? :joke: