Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Nature of Religious Language Essay -- Languag

Ludwig Wittgenstein once believed that lyric poems function was to name marks and the heart and soul of lyric was found in the objects for which it stands. He later spurned this and centred on how phraseology works and is used, believing that problems of spiritual oral communication come from misapprehend its usage. Wittgenstein was no longer concerned with the truth or falsity of language but the way it is used and the functions that it performs, as he said Dont want for the importee ask for the use. Wittgenstein recognised that language is equivocal as rowing have many different moments, such(prenominal) as the word pen whose meaning changes in different contexts. He saw language as a game, which like all games had its own set of rules. Different contexts or forms of life be like different language games with their own self contained rules. Those non obscure in a particular language game effectively go bad non-players and so the lang uage holds no meaning for them, however, this does not give the non-believer the unspoilt to dismiss religious language as meaningless. Wittgenstein used the example of soul to deck the problems of trying to use words in the wrong language game. He felt that the problems stemming from the word soul are caused because people try to see it as a physical object. Such problems would disappear if people realised that the physical object game didnt apply in this case. It was argued that language is a social product, therefore individuals could not have their own private language as one could not be certain that language was being used correctly. Wittgenstein therefore rejected Descartes ... ... Religious believers are also involved in other language games because they are involved in other aspects of life. This means that religious language is not totally isolated and there will be around common ground with other language games. This may suggest that th e non-believer may be able to understand religious language and decide if it holds any meaning for them. It is also argued that if anything, non-believers may be able to understand religious language better than a believer, as they can be more butt about it. It seems that Wittgenstein was mistaken as seeing religious language but being intelligible in the context of religious belief. Many religious statements entail a truth which is not dependent upon context, but statements such as Jesus died to bring salvation are though of as true for everyone.