Moral: Wittgenstein Language Games is a FSK

[Veritas Aequitas]

The FSKnowledge is aka FSCognition which is a subset of the FSERC.
My argument "Morality is Objective" is heavily reliant on FSERC-ed facts.

Here is Chat with AI [wr];

ME: Topic: Wittgenstein Language Games
I believe that knowledge and truth are contingent upon a human-based framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS [ratable] is the most credible and objective.
In this case, is Wittgenstein Language Games some sort of linguistic framework and system for knowledge, truth or communication purposes?

AI's response:

Wittgenstein's Language Games: A Framework for Understanding Language
Yes, Wittgenstein's Language Games can be seen as a linguistic framework and system. However, it's crucial to understand that this framework is fundamentally different from the scientific framework you've described.

Key Differences
Nature of the Framework:
Scientific Framework: Primarily concerned with objectivity, measurement, and prediction. It aims to uncover universal truths.
Language Games: Emphasizes the social, contextual, and practical aspects of language use. It focuses on how language functions in specific situations.

Understanding of Knowledge and Truth:

Scientific Framework: Knowledge is seen as a representation of reality that can be verified through empirical methods. Truth is objective and corresponds to the way the world actually is.  
Language Games: Knowledge and truth are deeply intertwined with language use and social practices.
There's no single, universal standard for truth, but rather multiple forms of truth depending on the language game being played.

Wittgenstein's Perspective
Wittgenstein argued that language is not a static tool for representing the world, but rather a dynamic activity embedded in human life. Language games are the various forms of language use that arise in different social contexts. These games include everything from simple requests to complex scientific discussions.  

In essence, Wittgenstein's framework offers a way to understand how language shapes our world, rather than simply reflecting it. It challenges the idea of a single, overarching linguistic system and highlights the diversity and complexity of human communication.

Can Language Games be a Framework for Knowledge, Truth, or Communication?
While Wittgenstein's concept doesn't provide a rigid, systematic framework like the scientific method, it does offer a powerful lens for analyzing knowledge, truth, and communication:

Knowledge: Language games can help us understand how knowledge is created and shared within specific communities.
Truth: Wittgenstein's perspective challenges the notion of absolute truth, suggesting that truth is relative to the language game being played.
Communication: By focusing on language use in context, language games provide insights into how meaning is constructed and shared.

................

Me: Can it be that each specific FS also has its specific Language Games?

Language Games Within Specific Frameworks
Absolutely! This is a perceptive observation.

Each framework, whether it's scientific, legal, artistic, or social, can be seen as a kind of language game. Within these frameworks, specific terms, rules, and practices shape communication and understanding.

Examples of Language Games within Frameworks

Scientific Framework:
Researchers use specific terminology, adhere to experimental methods, and engage in peer review.
There are specific language games for hypothesis testing, data analysis, and theory building.

Legal Framework:
Lawyers, judges, and juries participate in language games involving evidence, precedent, and argumentation.
Legal jargon and procedures create a distinct language game.

Artistic Framework:
Artists and critics engage in language games around interpretation, aesthetics, and value judgments.
Different art forms (e.g., painting, music, literature) have their own unique language games.

Implications
Recognizing that each framework has its own language game highlights:

The importance of context: Understanding the specific rules and conventions of a framework is crucial for effective communication within it.
The potential for misunderstandings: When people from different frameworks communicate, misunderstandings can arise due to differences in language games.
The possibility for innovation: By challenging the rules of a language game, new ideas and perspectives can emerge.

................

ME: In 'On Certainty' the later-Wittgenstein maintained the concept of 'Language Games' and he introduced the concept of 'door hinges' and river beds.
What I read is these door hinges and river beds are the a priori elements and structure that underlie the language games.

see next post:

Discuss??
Notes??

[Veritas Aequitas]

ME: In 'On Certainty' the later-Wittgenstein maintained the concept of 'Language Games' and he introduced the concept of 'door hinges' and river beds.
What I read is these door hinges and river beds are the a priori elements and structure that underlie the language games.

Door Hinges, Riverbeds, and Language Games: A Delicate Balance
Your understanding of Wittgenstein's "door hinges" and "riverbeds" as a priori elements underlying language games is a reasonable interpretation. However, it's important to approach these concepts with caution. Wittgenstein himself was wary of introducing new foundationalisms, and these terms are more suggestive than definitive.

A Closer Look
Door hinges: These represent the necessary conditions for language to function. They are the unspoken, taken-for-granted assumptions that make communication possible. For instance, the shared understanding of the meaning of words, the existence of a common world, and the reliability of our senses are all akin to door hinges.
Riverbeds: Similar to door hinges, riverbeds provide the structure within which language flows. They are the underlying beliefs and practices that shape our language use. However, unlike hinges, riverbeds are more fluid and subject to change.

A Priori or Not?
While these elements seem to have a foundational character, Wittgenstein was careful to avoid the trap of a purely rationalist or foundationalist approach. He emphasized the practical and social nature of language, suggesting that these "hinges" and "bedrocks" are deeply embedded in human life and are not merely abstract logical constructs.

Therefore, while it's accurate to say that they provide a framework for language games, to label them strictly as a priori might oversimplify their complex role. They are more like the implicit rules and structures that emerge from and sustain language use.

...................................

ME: Since Language Games are only played by humans [at least by living entities with language abilities], it is likely they are grounded in human nature.
Human nature is grounded in a priori and a posteriori elements [not fixed nor absolute] that changes with time, environment and evolutionary factors.
Some a priori elements, e.g. instinct are sort of permanent features of human nature, e.g. the 4Fs [food, fight, flight, fornicate], breathing, drinking and so on.
The a priori and a posterior elements are interdependent and they influence each other over time.
Although Wittgenstein did not elaborate on the above, I supposed the changeable a priori and a posteriori elements are implied to exist within his theory of 'language game'.

A Harmonious Synthesis
Your analysis is insightful and aligns well with Wittgenstein's broader philosophical concerns.

Indeed, language games are deeply rooted in human nature, a complex interplay of biological predispositions and cultural constructs. Your observation about the a priori and a posteriori elements influencing language games is particularly astute.

Key Points
Human Nature as Grounding: Wittgenstein, while not explicitly stating it, implicitly acknowledged the role of human nature in shaping language. Our biological makeup, including instincts and basic needs, undoubtedly influence the kinds of language games we develop.
Dynamic Nature of Language Games: Your emphasis on the changeable nature of a priori and a posteriori elements resonates with Wittgenstein's view of language as a fluid and evolving phenomenon. Language games are not static entities but are constantly adapting to changing circumstances.
Interdependence of Elements: The interplay between a priori and a posteriori factors is crucial. Biological predispositions provide a foundation, but cultural and historical factors shape how these predispositions are expressed in language.

Potential Areas for Further Exploration
The role of embodiment: How does our physicality influence the structure of our language games? For instance, consider the importance of spatial language or metaphors grounded in bodily experiences.
Evolutionary linguistics: How have language games evolved over time? What role does natural selection play in shaping linguistic structures?
Cultural relativism: To what extent are language games culturally specific? How do different cultures develop unique language games to address shared human experiences?

By exploring these questions, we can deepen our understanding of the complex relationship between human nature, language, and culture.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[FlashDangerpants]

Me: Can it be that each specific FS also has its specific Language Games?

Language Games Within Specific Frameworks
Absolutely! This is a perceptive observation.

BEEP BOOP...initiating protocol: Gold star prizes for the special boy!!


BIIPTY BOOP.... Your Robot pals appreciate you

[Flannel Jesus]

You know what we say to AI right?

Booooooo!

[Iwannaplato]

We have access to AIs also. If we wanted to find out how an AI would react to a certain wording, we could go and do that ourselves. And then we could try another wording to get a different response, often quite different.

So, it seems, you are slowly erasing yourself.

If this was a job, you'd be replacing yourself with an AI. You know, that thing people are concerned others may do TO them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We have access to AIs also. If we wanted to find out how an AI would react to a certain wording, we could go and do that ourselves. And then we could try another wording to get a different response, often quite different.

So, it seems, you are slowly erasing yourself.

If this was a job, you'd be replacing yourself with an AI. You know, that thing people are concerned others may do TO them.

FDP had condemned and insulted my link between Wittgenstein and my FSK [FSC] based on his ignorance and emotional triggers [re existential crisis].
As such, I refer to AI for comments and discussion, thus this OP is very relevant to educate FDP that he is wrong and his insults reflect his immaturity.

Instead of commenting on the topic, FDP and the other adding more insults rather than discuss the issue to expand their database on philosophy.

The point is there is and always a limit to AI.
What is critical is we delegate the mundane and tedious tasks to AI so that we can explore those issues that are very complex, nuanced and issues that cannot be handled very effectively by AI.

We have access to AIs also.
So, it seems, you are slowly erasing yourself.
If this was a job, you'd be replacing yourself with an AI. You know, that thing people are concerned others may do TO them.

??? I have always recommend everyone to use AI.
If that was my job, I will definitely welcome AI and look for alternatives [using AI] to earn $$$.

I have always complained posters here [almost every typical philosophy forum] has shallow, narrow and dogmatic thinking re philosophy. In a tit for tat using the nasty words like, kindi, gnat, locked in a tall silo re philosophical knowledge.
The advent of AI, i.e. LLMs will facilitate all humans will uplift their philosophical knowledge from an average of 100 say at present to 1000 in the near future.
This will contribute to my vision of perpetual peace in the future.

Another critical issue here is,
AI is always a tool.
What is critical is how well we can use AI as a tool to optimize its potential utility.
In using AI optimally, the consideration is how effective we can ask the AI the relevant questions.
This is why we have the latest courses in AI Prompt Engineering.

[Atla]

How exciting. Wittgenstein was no real philosopher and the FSK thing is no real philosopy either. Real philosophy deals with reality.

[johnhsmith]

Hey, this AI and psych stuff’s pretty interesting! Wittgenstein’s Language Games thing makes me think how we all talk different depending on the situation—like therapy’s got its own style vs brain science. AI could totally help us see those patterns and maybe even the big stuff underneath it all. What do you guys think—could AI shake up how we figure out our minds?