Political language games deserve more attention from Wittgensteinians, I think.
What sort of bridges could be built between the following:
(1) a conception of language games as a philosophical method for dissolving and/or removing absurdities about the meaning of “philosophically loaded” terms like understanding, ‘the mental’, and ‘definition vs. example’ and
(2) a conception of language games as a method for dissolving the politically absurd. What I mean by this latter term is
p: any statement issued by a government official that ought to immediately make questionable their epistemic authority regarding action taken in response to domestic and international crises
Let’s take a look at Dick Cheney’s recent comment about the alleged relationship between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam.
Cheney: “We’ve never made the case or argued the case that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9-11. That evidence has never been forthcoming.”
What exactly could he mean by “we’ve never made the case”? We have to construct cases in which it would be intelligible to say “we never made the case that x” despite our knowledge of the fact that the Bush administration very quickly ran with an idea of