Religious Language Language Games

correspondence theory of truth - ealist position - empiricist position - truth of a statement can be verifeid by determining what is meant by each word - corresponded by truth - Coherence theory of truth - anti relaist - truth is not based an a external reality but its interpretation of a group - people believed that the world was flat - two views of the truth

wittgenstein thought it was important that we understand which game we are plating

language as a facility to communicate ideas that were specific to their life -one can mistrust oen's own sense but not one's own belief

Not every language game has to be learnt as long as the rules can be explained and understood

'the meaning of a word is its use in the langauge'

understanding language not an easy task - painting is nothing more than 'patches of colour on the canvas'  -

'philsophy may in no way interfere with the actula use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundation either. It leaves everything as it is'

Rush Rhees - 1959 - Wittgenstein's builders - link between games and language had to be a strong one - strength of the watchmaker analogy is essential as a method of persuasion  - Hume criticism;s of paley's argument is that x and y have to significantly similar for the argument to like -

Rhees argued that - language was about making sense to toher peolpe not following a set of rules -- whilist possible to explain a game to someone who has never experienced a game before it is not possible to explain the concept of langague to someone who ahs never spoken or heard language before -- In order to know waht it means to play a game you need to know what people are doing when they play games - when a person uses language it needs to be understood as well as seen

Rach language game gas its own rules that are pertinent to it and do not extend in their entirety to any other - the anti relaist position whilist defending the truth within each group is unable to objectify the the truth between groups

If god has no objective meaning then how can we talk about god meangingfully - wittgenstein would argue that they're all just playing different language games