Actually it's from Austin rather than Wittgenstein. — Banno

Wherever it's from, it seems an illogical jump from treating behavior as an objective means of assessing meaning to declaring behavior as the speaker's subjective meaning.

So then, to what does it refer? — Banno

To the existential desperate human effort-need to overcome their end. Death is the concept.

What sort of thing is a concept? I think the notion quite problematic. Think I mentioned that before. I don't; understand what sort of thing a concept is, apart from just the way we use a word... — Banno

So indeed this old dead horse.

Couldn't your flog be put to fruitfuller use?

If you know how to use the word 'concept', why do you need to know what it is?

You don't know how to define 'game', but you know how to use the word. Why this special pleading over 'concept' - a word you also know how to use?

You don't know how to define a game but you know how to use the word. Why this special pleading over 'concept' - a word you also know how to use? — ZzzoneiroCosm

This is a good point, pointing out that it's not just the metaphysical existence of an underlying concept that is being denied, but "concept" is being denied having meaning even through usage, which is the gold standard under this analysis.

The problem I have in addition to this is that the "meaning is use" position does not require the outright denial of internal ineffable concepts; it just denies such can be discussed. It's one thing to declare that my public behavior is all you can know of me, but another to say that my public behavior is all there is of me.

To the extent @Banno is trying to define "concept" in a metaphysical way (as opposed to a usage way), he's correct in that you cannot tell him anything about your concept expect to the extent you can communicate it in words (your public behavior), but that hardly equates to a conclusion there can be no concept in your head that you are simply unable to communicate.

What sort of thing is a concept? I think the notion quite problematic — Banno

The notion of a concept? Or the concept of a notion?

I think the notion [of a concept] quite problematic. — Banno

Is 'notion' less problematic than 'concept'? Or do you use the word 'notion' here tongue-in-cheek? Even if tongue-in-cheek, here you demonstrate knowledge of its use.

Does the term "religion" refer to nothing? — Banno

Nothing specific.

I thought it an odd post by you because the riddle of "what is a religion" is no more a curiosity than "what is X," meaning religion doesn’t pose a special case anymore than any other word, and the riddle (as the article points out) was solved by Wittgenstein. Words simply don't have essences, and their meaning is based upon usage and context. That's that. — Hanover

It can very much be a problem when it comes to religious exemptions.

the example being that a religion has at least the characteristic of "a belief in superempirical beings or powers", together with some combination of other criteria. This is taken as answering the question as to why Buddhism is a religion but not Capitalism. — Banno

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is a superempirical power.

It refers to an ideology that relies on ultimate authority.

It refers to an ideology that relies on ultimate authority. — praxis

Whose authority?

Whose authority? — frank

Those with special access.

Priests?

Anyone who can somehow convince others that they have experienced or speak for the ultimate.

It can very much be a problem when it comes to religious exemptions. — Fooloso4

Legal definitions are easy to come by. It's whatever the legislature and judges say it is.

Legal definitions are easy to come by. It's whatever the legislature and judges say it is. — Hanover

This only points to the problem.

Anyone who can somehow convince others that they have experienced or speak for the ultimate. — praxis

Some religions are like that, yes.

Can you name one that isn’t like that?

Sure. Shamanic religions don't have anything “ultimate“ in the sense I think you mean. And esoteric Christianity doesn't have an ultimate who could be 'spoken for.'

There are a lot of other examples.

There are a lot of other examples. — frank

Maybe one of these others would be a good example. Please…

Maybe one of these others would be a good example. — praxis

What's wrong with the examples I gave?

This only points to the problem. — Fooloso4

It resolves the problem because it declares an authority for a prescriptive language system for a utilitarian purpose. If you want to dispense with the philosophical questions of "what is a cup," you provide someone the power to decree what a cup is and then that's what it is. You can argue as much as you want after the gavel falls, but it won't do you any good.

You can argue as much as you want after the gavel falls, but it won't do you any good. — Hanover

The fact of the matter is that there is case after case, some reaching all the way to the Supreme Court, dealing with what counts as a religious exemption. Cases including such things as whether discrimination is permissible because of religious exemption, whether vaccination (either all or only particular vaccines) is covered under religious exemption, and whether refusal to seek medical care for children is covered under religious exemption. In some cases arguments are made with regard to widely recognized religions, but in others whether what some individual or group does should be considered a religion and thus covered under exemption.

What's wrong with the examples I gave? — frank

Let’s see, the Christ in Christianity refers to, well, Christ, and not the average Joe, no? AverageJoeianity would be funny religion though, and I thank you for inspiring the amusing thought.

Shamanism is about accessing what?

Let’s see, the Christ in Christianity refers to, well, Christ, and not the average Joe, no? AverageJoeianity would be funny religion though, and I thank you for inspiring the amusing thought. — praxis

I said esoteric Christianity has an ultimate, but it can't be spoken for.

Shamanism is about accessing what? — praxis

Shamanic religions usually have a sun god. What do you think they're trying to access?

What do you mean by ultimate?

What do you mean by ultimate? — frank

In a word, metaphysics.

It seems rather obvious to me that both esoteric Christianity and Shamanic religions make metaphysical claims, or do believe that they merely describe the nature of reality?

Could you give an example of a metaphysical claim? (Because I think describing the nature of reality is metaphysical, so we're not on the same page.)

I think describing the nature of reality is metaphysical — frank

Even if God was describing it?

So we arrived in a ditch. Excellent.

Allow me to rephrase the question, if you will. Do you believe that religious folk make metaphysical claims or simply describe the true nature of reality? The latter case would require no faith. It would be like someone describing something unremarkable and ordinary, like how to mix a piña colada.

In many cases, religion and science are the same thing. That would be true for ancient Sumerian, Egyptian, Phoenician, Greek, Roman, Celtic, and yes all the old shamanic religions.

It kind of looks like you don't know what ontology is?