Critically Assess the Idea That Wittgensteins Language Games Makes Religious Language Meaningful (35)

829 Words4 Pages
Critically assess Wittgenstein’s belief that language games allow religious statements to have meaning (35) Wittgenstein’s language games refer to the theory that language can be used in a plethora of ways for various purposes in the world. I will be arguing that language games do allow religious statements to have meaning based on his belief that it is how you use language that is important, the different settings and situations that language is used in and fideism. I will be using Wittgenstein’s post-humours’ works to justify my debate as well as various other claims made by Wittgenstein which was built on by the logical positivists. Language is very subjective and personal, in the sense it can only make sense in certain situations making it, by its very nature, equivocal. Wittgenstein’s language games argument implies that statements such as ‘god is good’ are meaningful in certain situations. For Catholics, for example, this statement is acceptable and meaningful as it resonates with that certain community whereas discussing this statement with atheists or people who don’t believe in gods goodness would make it meaningless. By allowing language to be meaningful in certain situations, discussion about religion is meaningful as it has the potential to hold meaning. This backs up my argument as language holding a certain meaning in a community or context means that every statement has the potential to have meaning. For example, if I said ‘Manchester United is the best team in England’ to a group of football fans, it has meaning. They might agree or disagree, but the statement holds meaning. If I said this statement to a gathering of OAPs who are not in any way invested in football, the statement loses meaning. This is the same as religious language. If spoken in the right context to the correct group of people, it is viable and meaningful. Wittgenstein also
Open Document