FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:42 am
The whole premise of this thread gives me the dry heaves, but Seeing as this is relevant to other matters, VA might as well develop a proper understanding of Wittgenstein, language games, and conveniently for me ... why Wittgenstein said the big problems of philosophy (including the noumenal/phenomenal thing) are all just the product of misunderstandings within that arena.
So here's an
A.C. Grayling lecture at Cambridge Uni on exactly that stuff.
I have listened to the whole video and copied the whole transcripts.
What is in this video supported my point that Wittgenstein's Language Game is exactly what I present as an embodied human-based FSRC.
Here are some relevant notes that support the concept of a
FSRC.
...................
"it was a phase predicated on the idea that he had been quite
badly wrong in the Tractatus about how language has meaning
in order to see
how wrong the tractatus was and why therefore it is necessary to revise the view about the nature of language and how it works
he meant that just in just the way that a game is an activity which has its own
rules which explains how you use the the pieces in the game ..
think for example of chess or backgammon it's a kind of
self-constituting enterprise where what you mean by using a piece in the game is set by the tradition of use by the behavior that you associate with it
so really you you would as a solo language user never be in a position to know whether you are using terms with the same content the same meaning as on an earlier occasion
unless you were
a member of a linguistic community which could check and control your uses of expressions
unless you were a member of a rule-following community of speakers who together constitute the meanings of the expressions they use and govern their respective uses of those expressions
you can see the connection between the rule following considerations and the private language argument they are in a way the reverse and obverse of the same point because the reason why a language cannot be logically private is that
language is a rule government activity and
rules can only exist in a public setting can only be followed can it be recognized as genuinely normative in a public setting
that the discourses of ethics and religion constitute their own meaning because they
constitute a game a language game woven into a way of living a form of life having therefore they're validating their own meanings giving them their own semantic content making sense because this game has its own constitutive rules
the reason why a language cannot be logically private is that language is
a rule government activity and rules can only exist in a public setting can only be followed can it be recognized as genuinely normative in a public setting
that that that is my account of Wittgenstein on games and that is my account of the game that wickenstein was playing namely to protect those things that he regarded as important ethics and religion from the encroachments of a reductive scientific attitude to them in his early work and in the later work by saying that ethical talk and religious talk validate themselves because
they give themselves their meaning in
the language games and forms of life that they constitute"
.................
There is no difference with the above Wittgenstein's Language Game with my concept of a Framework and System of R & C, i.e.
The FSRC must have its own specific self-contained constitution, rules, processes and other necessary requirements.
The science FSRC is different from a political, historical, linguistic FSRC.
Even within the scientific FSRC, there are specific sub-FSRC e.g. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. that has their own specific constitution in generating their own realities and meanings.