Welcome to the FAQ page.  “Frequently Asked Questions” makes it seem like I will actually provide you with a list of the most frequently asked questions by my readers.  I have readers, or so Google Analytics tells me, but they don’t ask questions. Normally this would concern me but I’m fairly certain many if not most of the sites one encounters in a given day fail equally in this regard.  Let’s be honest: you write the FAQ to prevent someone from asking you questions! Just kidding (kind of).

Ok, on to the FAQ:

1) What’s up with the title, Language Games? Is this like a site about a video game involving learning languages, because I’m not down with that!

I can assure you that the title and this blog have nothing to do with learning language.  In fact, if you give Wittgenstein a chance, you’ll find that his later stuff will kind of make everything vague and undetermined.  By everything I mean everything you can think of, conceive, and express in language.

In any event,  my use of the term language games is just a pop-philosophy reference to the great philosopher of language, Ludwig Wittgenstein.  He coined the term as a metaphor and theme for dissolving famous philosophical paradoxes caused by our own confusion of language (and grammar).  Just as the word “game” has no definite meaning, the meaning of philosophically troublesome words such as “meaning” or “intention” is simply the way the word is used in a particular social context.  We play games with our words and confusion is the result of the confusion of language games.

2) I thought Wittgenstein was hardcore into logic and the logical analysis of language…wouldn’t he say that language is logically determined?

Yeah, he did.  But then he appeared to do a philosophical 180 after the publication of the Tractatacus.

He became critical of the views of logical atomism and those of his closest philosophical peers and ventured into a more philosophical place that was markedly particular, relative, and uncertain.  None of this is to say that his later work COMPLETELY opposed his earlier work.  There are some great interpretations and historical overviews of the connection between the Tractacus and the Philosophical Investigations.

3) Why is Wittgenstein so interesting to you (let alone anyone)?

I’m not sure why I am so interested in his later work.  To some extent I think that his later work has a particular insanity about it.  Wittgenstein’s mode of expression in his later work is somewhat less academic and stuffy than the style he used in the Tractacus.

Wittgenstein talks with himself, as he cascades into different roles, each providing a glimpse into another philosophical assumption about language, knowledge, and the world. The reader is never provided with a theory but rather a way of theorizing.  If Wittgenstein bestows any knowledge, its a knowledge confusion.  An unrelenting but playful dissolution of conceptual pillars so prevalent in the Western world as to go unnoticed in common exchange.

Lastly, Wittgenstein intrigues me because of the bizzare continuinty one finds in his thinking, despite his explicit rejection of his former views concerning language, meaning, and the function of philosophical discourse in general.

4) Why isn’t Wittgenstein studied more at the undergraduate level!?

I’m not sure, really.  Possible explanations are that most people who are experts in Wittgenstein’s philosophy seem to be concerned with Wittgenstein’s work and not much else (in the way of philosophy).  I was told that by one of my philosophy professors.  Another explanation is that there probably aren’t many experts on Wittgenstein in general; there’s no standard of interpretation regarding his views. Of course, most philosophers (or anyone, really) fail to be as consistent with the paradigms we assign them as we think they are, but Wittgenstein’s later work (in particular) just doesn’t bode well for a college philosophy professor trying to get their students to understand the distinction between soundness and validity.

What I mean to say is that his later work flies in the face of the analytic discourse in philosophy. At the least, it’s irrelevant for the major purposes of the curriculum.  His earlier work is perfect for a student of analytic philosophy, but it’s extremely dense and the kind of logic that would best formalize it is probably not part of the repertoire of a typical undergraduate freshman interested in what the hell philosophers do.

5) The questions in this FAQ don’t seem to flow logically, how come?

Well, it’s 5 am and I probably don’t have access to that sort of mental capacity at the moment.

6) How can I contact you?

You can email me at dprice218@wordpress.com or you can simply leave a comment!

7) I’m a fellow blogger/student/theorist/author/feminist artist interested in x (where x is something remotely related to the kinds of issues I discuss here) and want to do something jointly with you.  How would I motivate a shared project? 

Pitch the idea to me via email.  I’m always interested in publishing online and would love to hear your ideas.

UPDATED: 9-17-07