Ludwig Wittgenstein actually produced TWO CONFLICTING PHILOSOPHIES OF LANGUAGE: The first is based on Bertrand Russell's ideas about turning language into a set of clear logical relationships, which he criticizes and expands. But the second is a total rejection of the idea that language is "logical" at all! Instead, Philosophical Investigations compares language a kind of game that we play, in a particular context, with other people, to accomplish a particular goal. I'd like you to watch this video about the dual theories, and then post your observations in the comments. You can tell me which theory you think is "better," and why, or you can compare and contrast them, explain why you think his views changed, etc. But remember, Wittgenstein famously tells us we should keep silent if we have nothing important to say. So think of something good!
27 Comments
Parizaad Mohammadi
3/21/2017 02:31:39 pm
I believe that the Philosophical Investigations theory is better. I believe this because it is impossible to go through life speaking completely objectively. It isn't in the human nature and a lot of the times it isn't practical. Sometimes we need to be subtle or reassure others with something other than facts. Therefore, I believe Wittgenstein's second and contradicting theory is better.
Reply
Paige Whittle
3/21/2017 03:13:52 pm
Wittgenstein's first philosophy says that language is always logical and almost mathematical, and if someone doesn't have something important to say they shouldn't say anything at all. I agree with Wittgenstein's first philosophy in that people should speak more carefully and less impulsively, as speaking recklessly and impulsively could lead to larger problems; however, I disagree with him when he says that communicating makes pictures of facts. I believe that pictures cannot be facts, as pictures are art pieces that are open to endless interpretations. I also disagree with Wittgenstein when he says if someone doesn't have something important to say, they should not talk at all, since this is simply illogical because many people engage in meaningless conversations, which is okay. On the other hand, Wittgenstein's second philosophy views language as more of a game, which completely contradicts his first philosophy. People use words to get across their emotions and desires, including a desire to be helped, reassured, or nurtured. I believe this philosophy is more accurate, as many humans us language in order to get their emotions and ideas across to others. This philosophy is also better because something as complex and creative as language cannot be confined to mathematical and logical formulas.
Reply
Jennifer Spinelli
3/21/2017 03:43:15 pm
Wittgenstein'a first theory is very logic-based. He breaks a sentence down into an equation and if you can't follow that, then don't talk. His second theory which comes decades after, says that language is more like a game and that each person could be part of their own game. He's a smart man so I think he just did a lot of thinking and proved himself wrong similar to how Einstein did at the end of his life (even though other scientists later proved him right). When I heard his first theory, I loved it and agreed to an extent. But once I heard his second theory, I thought that made more sense.
Reply
Max Portman
3/21/2017 05:19:06 pm
I agree with Wittgenstein when he says that language can be calculated like math to achieve a certain response or reaction from an individual. However, like math, language is entirely made up and only makes sense to us because it has been taught to make sense. Language is a way to express emotion or idea when nothing else in your physical body can. Somebody from Zimbabwe may have absolutely no idea what somebody from Mexico is saying but they can still connect beyond language through emotion and common ground. Where the tricky part comes in is how that is achieved without language and because different cultures use different languages, it becomes even harder. Wittgenstein is right to say that the language we have created can be used strategically but in the grand scheme of things, language is just a way of comprehending things we cannot understand.
Reply
Marissa Seely
3/21/2017 06:35:51 pm
Wittgenstein's initial philosophy piggybacked off of the ideas of Bertrand Russell, At first, Wittgenstein thinks language should be, and wants it to be, very logical. Like Russell, he wanted everything to make sense, and believed that the things people say must connect directly to the physical, objective thing in order for the language to be "good." Wittgenstein believed that his philosophy of "logic" had solved all of life's questions, however, he later retracted this statement and introduced his newer philosophy, that language is more of a game. I agree with this second philosophy more than his first. Even today, we use language as a use, a tool, with a purpose. There are intentions behind every word and phrase we speak. This makes a lot more sense if you ask me, because when it comes to language, it's really anything BUT logical. We literally made it all up! Every word, phrase, letter, they're just symbols to represent sounds to represent ideas. There is no logic behind it at all. It's just the system we happened to create to make our thoughts and intentions heard, and play out our different language games based on our personal needs (comfort, logic, social interaction, morality, etc.)
Reply
Sofia Fernandes
3/21/2017 06:55:46 pm
Wittgenstein’s first theory of communication was very clean, logical, and easy to understand. Despite this, I feel that there are some holes in it. I agree way more with his second theory. Although it is very true that language allows people to communicate their thoughts in an effective manner to other people, it also allows them to almost choose how to make the other people feel. For example, if I was eating cookies and my friend asked me for one, I could say “yea sure” and hand one to them. Of course, my tone and facial expression go along with the words to communicate how I am feeling, but if I only used those words they would still understand. My friend would most likely use those words to determine that I am happy to give them my cookie. On the other hand, if I said “I guess so”, my friend would most likely feel a completely different way. They would understand that I did not really want to give them my cookie. So, I said “yes” both times but my diction was able to change how my friend felt about taking the cookie. I also agree with Wittgenstein’s second theory because language does not always effectively pass thoughts from one person to another. Sometimes distractions or lack of emphatical qualities in the receiver may result in an ineffective communication. For example, after saying “I guess so”, my friend could possible not connect my word choice with my negative feelings and then take the cookie. This would make me angry at them for not being considerate, while they actually never received the correct message through my language in the first place! In conclusion, I agree with Wittgenstein’s second theory of language because language is far more complicated, messy, and natural than what his first theory suggests.
Reply
Michelle Mazzucca
3/21/2017 07:32:22 pm
I agree with Wittgensteins first philosophy to an extent. His first philosophy is about language being logical. Everything had a one certain meaning. If someone didn't understand what they were talking about, then it is best to not talk about it because they will look like a fool. In my opinion, I would want to avoid talking about something I didnt know about or talking about something where it isn't my place to speak. I agree with the part where people have to be careful about how they put together words with sentences when communicating with others to avoid conflict. What I don't like about this philosophy is that everything people speak about is supposed to make sense when realistically, many things in the world don't make sense. At first when discussing this first philosophy in class, it made sense to me but at the same time I wasn't able to tell if I completely liked it. After seeing the second philosophy, I realized that I liked this one more than the first. His second philosophy contradicts the first one by stating that language is a game. Language is used to express feelings. People use language as a means to communicate with others, talk about random things, make jokes, and not take everything so serious all the time.
Reply
Meghan Pawlak
3/21/2017 08:11:34 pm
There really isn't much seperating math from language, if anything math could be considered a language itself since its just a bunch of symbols representing different meanings and ideas. So while his first theory of having a literal language would be ideal for those who think more literally and technically it's simply unnecessary. Personally i prefer the second theory of language being a game because there is so much that can be done and shouldn't be restricted by literal meaning-ness. Like the image about we can create stories and tell jokes and so many other things that wouldn't be possible if we followed the first theory alone
Reply
Emma Vollmuth
3/22/2017 04:09:02 am
Wittgenstein's fisrt philosophy was very logic based, which was good for the reason that it portected the people in a sense. He people we're all very logical, thinking before doing anything, but his first theory did have its flaws. One of the major flaws that immediately stuck out for me was the lack of interpretation, for Wittgenstein, a lot of the things he thought he wss dealing with were to him, objective, at first he lacked a sense of subjectivity. His second theory however changed immensely, going against himself completely, the second philosophy is all about how language is a game that is used to help with our emotions, I find this guy to be very strange because his ideas completely contradict each other, creating a whole confusing situation.
Reply
phoebe carr
3/22/2017 06:34:30 am
As a writer, Wittgenstein makes me extremely angry. Both of his theories eliminate anything even remotely fun from language and expression, and I hate both of them. That being said, I prefer his second theory. Not only because I think it's funny that he changed his entire perspective on language, but because it leaves room for leeway in the meanings of words and does not place such strict limits on what we can and can't say.
Reply
Gabriella Lopez
3/22/2017 04:42:16 pm
I agree with Wittgenstein's second theory of language. The language-game that we all part-take in is a basic principle of communication and culture. I think his second theory better accounts for different aspects of communication such as body language and tone, which play a vital role in the meaning of what we say! His first theory is blatant and boring. He basically says that words within our language all have one meaning. I'm glad he finally woke up and realized that there are more aspects to meaning than to just our wording. Hence, I agree most with his second theory.
Reply
Olivia Smelas
3/23/2017 11:38:26 am
Wittgenstein's second theory greatly intrigues me, but I can't say I love either of his views on language and its meaning. It is completely impossible and opposite of human nature for all language to be deemed logical. We are expressive beings with hormones, emotions, and urges we at times find hard to control. Perhaps the most common vehicle for these feelings are words, where they likely will bear the least weight. If all language was logical, most people, myself included, wouldn't talk at all. But, that is also sort of the beauty of language, we have the ability to give sometimes thoughtlessly uttered words meaning should we so choose. Unfortunately, today, partly because of social media, we've grown accustomed to saying "omg ily!!!" to those we hate, and some words have indeed lost their meanings. In a way, yes, words have become games used to manipulate others into thinking a certain thing or acting a certain way. Words have become pawns in the game of life, which is unfortunate. I'd like to think "I love you", and "I miss you" still have real genuine meaning, and I think in some cases they do, but in most, they're just empty words meant to reflect on the "loving/caring" nature of the speaker, not at all on the response of the one being told so. I will reluctantly agree that words are games, though I do wish it were different. This is especially prominent on social media, as aforementioned. And in the social media culture we live in, I only predict the perpetuation of word games and the eventual miscommunication they entail.
Reply
Paige Davis
3/24/2017 06:31:52 am
I agree with Wittgensteins second theory of language which is the language we all use and play in our game is a basic part of communication. His first theory didn't make sense to me which was that our language has one meaning so in my opinion his second theory is better and helps us better understands this idea of communication and language.
Reply
Edith
3/27/2017 08:12:03 am
The idea Wittgenstein has of language being a game. Sounds correct. The first idea he creates is limited and restricting. Knowing that each situation calls for a language game that needs to be understood, or learned, helps explain concepts such as common sense. I think the reason for his change in ideas is he experienced more in the world and he became as receptive as he can be. This could have caused him to think about common sense, or his equivalent term for knowledge of social norms. Language is never about the words only, the interaction between individuals needs to be considered.
Reply
Kaitlyn Viola
3/27/2017 05:28:36 pm
Wittgenstein's second theory of language seems like a much more accurate one. Every word has an intention. Perhaps it is concrete, but it often isn't. Like Wittgenstein said, statements such as "Everything will be okay!" can have the intention of comfort, and not stating a proven-true fact. Language is the game all human beings play because there is no one universal intention behind a word. Words can be used ironically, sarcastically, metaphorically, and so on. Further, language as a written system, such as poetry or texting, can be misinterpreted by different people due to their producer's intention being misunderstood. Overall, I agree most with Wittgenstein's theory that misunderstandings arise when we fail to understand what kind of game someone is involved in when they use their language.
Reply
Tyhler Harty
3/28/2017 04:27:20 am
I believe Wittgenstein's second theory is more correct then his first. The reasoning is that even though both theories use language, the second of his theories states that language has only as much meaning as you put into it rather than it being all logical.
Reply
Tara
3/30/2017 07:39:47 am
I think Wiitgenstein's Tactatus Logico Philosophicus theory is better because it's makes sense that people only stand things as the pictures in their heads because i do that, and that the root of communication problems is that people can't have the same image of the same thing in their heads. I think that there are things that people can do to help communicate better but at the end of the day all of us argue over something because one persons says it's this way and the other says no it's that way, because they can't picture the same thing. However the theory that i personally like better mainly is the 2nd one but that was because it discuss feelings if angst and nostalgia as our way of understanding the illusive parts of our brain and i guess that just makes me feel secure.
Reply
Emily
4/2/2017 05:34:13 pm
I was pretty confused with Wittgenstein's first theory. It was very logic based, which I usually find appealing because I tend to think logically. It broke up a sentence into smaller pieces, which through me off because I understand sentences as more complete, full thoughts- not small fragments. But actually, they are small fragments combined together (words). His second theory of describing language as a game made more sense to me. Language is a game, one of communication. This theory was more realistic and even more logical to me, because its easier to understand universally and seems more practical to how we interpret language everyday.
Reply
Nora Fraser
4/2/2017 06:28:05 pm
Wittgenstein's first theory states that the only thing language can do is communicate logical ideas, or facts. This would only include stating objective truths, and he said that saying anything illogical, like trying to explain emotion was a misuse of language. His second philosophy portrayed language as something more abstract, a way to convey unexpressible but relatable ideas. He called this the language game, in which different beings could understand, based off of social cues and spoken words, exactly what another person meant. This theory makes more sense, and is much more accurate, interesting, and less restrictive, so I agree with it more.
Reply
Allie Talavera
4/2/2017 06:31:12 pm
I believe Wittgenstein's second theory is more accurate then his first. Yes, language is based off the rules of grammar and spelling, but the actual content of language and driven by emotion which is why i agree with his second theory. The game of language is played by reacting to others so it can in no way be analyzed in such a logical sense which is why i do not agree with his first theory.
Reply
Corey Van Huff
4/3/2017 02:53:37 am
Wittgenstein's first theory works better for the climate of today. Many people speak in a way that is stupid and causes more harm then good. I know many people who speak and you wonder why they are doing so. Unless you are saying something of value, you should remain silent. While I do agree that Language is emotionally based, I feel thats as of late it is an issue. The only things that should be emotional are Poetry and Stories. Nothing else.
Reply
Adam Fioretti
4/3/2017 05:18:01 am
I think that I can agree, language is like a game you can play in between memebers of your own species. When you think about it this game can be played in between different species. For example, when you call your dog in from the backyard they will come because they listen for that sound that was once strange to them to now knowing it's their label or something they need to respond too. Even though dogs or other pets cannot talk back or hold a conversation by our human standards they will still respond to us by using their language that we've basically figured out. Wag- happy and tail between the legs- sad or scared. To conclude, I believe that language is just a form of which how we decided to communicate, math is somewhat of a language but I don't know if I could classify it the same way.
Reply
Julia maier
4/3/2017 05:28:23 am
His first theory is strictly knowledge based, i agree with him that some things you should think before you speak, but you shouldnt live youre life only speaking facts you, you should be able to add emtion into what you have to say therefore I believe his second theory is better.
Reply
bella glidden
4/3/2017 05:57:37 am
i agree with Wittgenstiens second theory of language because today we play more of a language game when we speak. we talk more freely rather than following a set of rules when we speak. today we speak more freely with what we want and what we believe in.
Reply
Dahlia Mozino
4/3/2017 06:10:02 am
I'm personally not a fan of either theory, as they both make language seem boring and predictable.
Reply
Holly Braverman
4/3/2017 11:00:25 am
Ludwig Wittgenstein was an Austrian philosopher who focused on language. His philosophical career can be divided into two parts — interrupted by a series of odd jobs following his bold claim that he had solved philosophy — that can each be represented by a book he wrote. His first book, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, outlined his initial theory of language, which he asserted was an entirely logical system and process. In this first theory, he argued that language works by triggering pictures in our minds, and consequently any problems of communication arise when one subject’s mental picture does not match that of the other subject’s. After a period of renouncing philosophy, Wittgenstein realized that he no longer supported his first theory. He went on to write his second book, entitled Philosophical Investigations, which refutes the notion that language is founded upon logic. Rather, Wittgenstein proposed that language is an essential tool in the playing of “language games”, or patterns of intentions. As per this theory, he stated that problems of communication stem from one’s inability to see what language game another person is playing and to thereby participate accordingly.
Reply
Michael Deitz
4/4/2017 10:48:33 am
Wittgenstein is a remarkable philosopher in the case that he knows when he is wrong and goes to make amends, creating a polar opposite philosophy than his initial one. Rather than being like fellow scholars and always sticking to one school of thought, Wittgenstein went back on what he said about language being only logical to it being entirely subjective and almost like a game. As a proponent for the subjectivity of language, I wholeheartedly agree with his second approach, wherein language depends on culture and social norms and not logic alone. Sure there can be logic in language, but to deny the intersubjectivity and personalization of language, such as slang, shorthand, and dialects, completely takes out the character of a beautiful form of communication. Language is all about explaining your personal thoughts and beliefs to others; without language we would be lost and solitary. Our society has grown so to be one of teamwork and communication, we constantly rely on others to help further ourselves. To believe that language would be any different is, ironically, illogical.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |