3. Meaning, Understanding and Interpretation

                                                                        It is very important to have clear concepts of meaning,  understanding and interpreting something especially in Philosophy as these concepts are very often misunderstood and misused in our thinking. A thing or object referred to by a name is taken for its meaning as we have learnt as children to point to something and utter its name, called ostensive definition, which is alright for practical purposes. However, to identify a name with its meaning leads to the unsavory consequence of the name 'Paul' losing meaning on the death of Paul. Besides, one and the same name may be used for many objects as well as many objects may be named by the same name like 'Bank'. This shows that the meaning of a word is not like a label to be attached to a person or thing, but its meaning is its use in language in specific contexts. Moreover, the meaning of a word is not something other than the word itself, but its employment, application or use in appropriate contexts. This understanding of meaning of a word is applicable to a large class of cases, though not for all, as its use in the language. 
                                                                      Our tendency to think of the meaning as the same kind of a thing as the word, though different from the word, should be curbed. "Here the word, there the meaning. The money and the cow that you can buy with it. (But contrast: money, and its use.)" (P.I., para. 120). The words in language stand as sign-posts that need interpretation for understanding the meaning and as the interpretations vary, the meaning also will be different. Different possibilities in interpretation and disagreements arise because of lack of agreement in not only definitions but also judgments. Even ostensive definitions can be misinterpreted in every case and an ostensive definition is workable only when one knows a lot more about the language. However, for particular purposes we define words that might need other definitions for clarification and yet the process cannot go on indefinitely before we start understanding and acting upon it. If I am particular to travel in the last compartment of a train, I don't wait indefinitely as there is a possibility of adding another compartment as the last one!
                                                                         How one understands a definition is seen from the use he or she makes of the word defined. This is not to censure the person, but to understand whether he or she has taken the word to mean the same way as I have used it. One is free to use it as one likes provided the person's use is governed by the rules of language that come within the province of the grammar of the language. (See further Posts for more about rules and grammar of language). Grammar only describes and does not explain the use of signs. Signs themselves are able to be interpreted correctly because the persons concerned are within a community, culture, custom, convention where the signs are used. They agree not only in definitions, but also in judgments. We cannot direct someone to a destination using English language if the person doesn't know a word of English!    
                                                                         

2. Rule-following and Philosophical Activity

                                                                        There are various kinds of rules that we follow in life. Rules of traffic, rules of discipline, rules of games, etiquette rules, rules of family life, rules of relationships etc. Is there anything in common in those rules that propels us to call all of them 'rules' ? Or again, is there any one thing common, in games for instance, due to which we call them all games? Our 'philosophical tendency' is to say that there 'must be' something common in all of them due to which we call them 'games'. This is the result of just blindly 'thinking' without 'looking'. When we closely examine them, we discover that all of them are called 'rules' or 'games' as the case may be due to 'family resemblances' among them and not due to any one thing common to all. Since it is possible to interpret a rule in different ways, interpretation of rule is not the way to grasp a rule. The way of grasping a rule without interpretation is exhibited in what we call "obeying the rule" and "going against it" in actual cases. Thus we may restrict the term "interpretation" to the substitution of one expression of the rule for another. "And hence also 'obeying a rule is a practice. And to 'think' one is obeying a rule is not to obey a rule. Hence it is not possible to obey a rule 'privately': otherwise thinking one was obeying a rule would be the same thing as obeying it". (Ludwig Wittgenstein, P.I., para. 202).
                                                    Thinking about games, is it possible for two people to invent a game that is never played by anyone nor is it going to be played by anyone? Are the rules of the game just in the minds of these two individuals without depending on any custom or technique? If the rules are only in their minds, will they, just the two individuals , be able to agree on the rules? Will they able to decide what is according to the rules and what is against them? Will they be able to make the right moves in a game, say, like chess? Whatever each one thinks would be right for that person and they wouldn't be able to make any move and the game collapses like a house of cards. This shows that a game with its rules should have the background support of a custom, a technique of playing the game of chess for these individuals to play it. The same is true of language with its rules of use, which presupposes the common behavior of people in a society that stands as the point of reference for language use. "Language is a labyrinth of paths. you approach from 'one' side and know your way about; you approach the same place from another side and no longer know your way about." (Wittgenstein, P.I., para. 203).
                                                              There should be certain amount of constancy, regularity in the use of rules in language as elsewhere. That is why we can teach rules to others who don't know them by training them where mere explanations may not be enough. Explanations may be interpreted and interpreted wrongly defeating the purpose of conveying ideas through concepts.Training to understand a concept has the advantage of acting it out by the teacher so that the concept is accurately conveyed. Here again, mere examples will not serve the purpose unless one knows how to apply them in what ways to do it in the concrete instances. Pointing to an object and calling out its name, called 'ostensive definition' has a limited role, for example, in teaching children. Since any 'ostensive definition' can be misunderstood, that cannot be considered as the final court of appeal to explain and clarify concepts and their meanings. "Teaching which is not  meant to apply to anything but the examples given is different from that which 'points beyond' them."(P.I., para. 208). 

1. Why Philosophical Activity?

                                                                       What do we intend to convey by this unusual title for a study in Philosophy? There is a widespread view that philosophy is some sort of abstract, out of the world, speculative subject that it has nothing to do with our ordinary and everyday life. It is true that much of classical Philosophy fits the bill in this description, but we do not intend to belittle the important roles played by it at various periods of history. However, the surge of scientific thinking due to advancements in empirical sciences put paid to the uncontrollable speculative onslaughts of Philosophy on human thinking. This new-found independence of sciences from Philosophy tended to tilt the scale in the other direction of extolling the might of the sciences, especially, Physics, against Philosophy, Theology, Religious and Moral Studies and humanities in general. This trend was accentuated by the Principle of Verification of the Logical Positivists of the Vienna Circle of the 1920s and 30s with the tacit support of the great Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, so they thought, who repudiated their claims.
                                                                       Ludwig Wittgenstein practiced Philosophy as an activity and the only other philosopher with whom he may be remotely compared in this is Socrates of the ancient Greek Philosophy. However, Wittgenstein's activity of Philosophy was within the Philosophy of Language, while Socrates used the methodology of question and answer with his disciples to elucidate the problems surrounding human life. Wittgenstein's understanding of Philosophy as an activity was developed in his later years from the year 1929 onward posthumously published as "Philosophical Investigations", before which he was under the spell of Logic expressed in his only published book during his lifetime titled: "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus". Besides this, the only published item during his life time was an article in 1929 on 'Logical Form'. With that article on "Logical Form', which elaborated on 'how things are' or 'the general form of propositions', Wittgenstein started to re-think about the role of Philosophy as an activity.
                                                                     What we want to do in this Study is to examine our thinking habits in the light of Wittgenstein's method, elaborated especially in his "Philosophical Investigations". For any Philosophical study we need to practice a certain amount of 'abstraction' or 'bracketing off' from our preconceived pet ideas without which one will not be able to see the point intended to be conveyed. This essential condition is all the more required to understand Wittgenstein whose writings are not meant for a casual and passing interest in the midst of other concerns. A meditative attitude is the right atmosphere needed when we study his writings and only after understanding what he intends to say may we ever think of criticizing it. Many authors have criticized him with their own understanding of him only to be shown that they are far from what he intended to say. Therefore, we have to be very cautious not to jump into conclusions thinking that we have Wittgenstein as our support!
                                                                   Logic is, in a sense, the soul of Philosophy as well as that of language and yet this has to be correctly understood. The common belief that 'Logic' is something 'pure' and 'abstract' and consists in some preconceived rules of thought and language is highly mistaken and has to be seen in our actual use of language. The rules of language are similar to rules in the game of chess, for instance, where we state the rules of the game, not describing their physical properties. The question "What is a word really?" is analogous to "What is a piece in chess?" (Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, paragraph, 108. Hereafter, P.I., para.)   
                                          a