Overview
one is
idea that you cannot just base the meaning of language on just syntax, you have to base it on how it is used. We must view language in its relationship to the whole community. The context within these communities is called language games. These language games are meant to emphasize the use of a language in a community. The use of language is based on a person's culture and because language is a part of culture, it is going to be used in different ways by different cultures. Therefore, the same word could have different meanings to different people. These cultures have different ways of using both verbal and nonverbal language.
This is important as seen through the lens of wide reflective equilibrium. I think that both wide reflective equilibrium and Wittgenstein's idea of basing the meaning of language on its use are very similar. With Wittgenstein's idea, the meaning of words either evolves throughout the years and new ones are added because of the way that it is used, or meanings are discarded and replaced with new ones. Wide reflective equilibrium allows for morals to evolve and be very flexible because it allows for mutual agreement on adjusting morals, which is based on the current time. This helps to correct judgement that could have been enforced under outdated judgement.
- you dont have to response long. 150 words if fine
- done
7 mins ago
number 2
The most important part of Aurenbach's article is that language is based on context. You cannot seperate the meanings of words from the context in which they are used, and the context extends far beyond merely the words and topic of discussion at hand. Each person is bringing in their own thought and interpretation of what each word means and how they use it. The web is world wide. Idioms, metaphors, and other figures of speech vary wildly across the world, while some countries may have a few in common, many have ones that are wildly different from each other. Even people from the same geography location that hang out on different places online can use a word differently from others. For example on the website Twitch 'pog' is used as a short hand for 'poggers'; prior to Twitch a pog to me was a small cardboard or metal disk with a design or picture on it.
All of this can mean higher instances of people arguing or disagreeing with each other because they misinterpreted what someone else said online. While many people online are working to address this wide-ranging issue, the ways they try to do so are equally wide-ranging. A group might all agree to use tone indicators (social contract), or might choose some other way to denote intent. This is a great example of how the constraint of Norms applies to cyberspace. As with many of the philosophies we have discussed in class, not every group values everything the same way.