 Welcome to this lecture series on aspects of western philosophy, module 30. This lecture is particularly on Wittgenstein's later philosophy. In the previous lecture, we have seen primarily the philosophical position Wittgenstein advocated in his early life, where we have examined Tractatus' logic of philosophicus, the only one book which he has published during his lifetime. We have also seen that you know after publishing this work after Wittgenstein left philosophy, condemning that he has solved all the problems of philosophy and there is no point work towards anything in philosophy. So, he left and he worked as a school teacher, but he later on came back to philosophy. So, this is that second period or the sort of you know after his return to philosophy and to Cambridge nearly 16 years and during this period he developed, he has written extensively on various topics, but unfortunately where none of these things were published during his lifetime, but even his notes given to his students were published after his death in the name of Blue Book and Brown Book. And philosophical investigations probably is the most important work during the later period of Wittgenstein, but he has written on various other topics. Another very notable work is Culture and Value, where he speaks about culture, very original insights about culture. Then again his views about religion, the religious language games are quite interesting and where widely read and discussed by philosophers and also his views about aesthetics, but this lecture will rather focus only on two things, the conception of language games and the I mean basically these two things, the notion of meaning where Wittgenstein conceives meaning as use. It is often stated that Wittgenstein as advocated a kind of theory of meaning during his later period, which is called the use theory of meaning, which is actually not very correct, because he was not attempting to propagate any theory per say quote and quote on meaning, rather he was trying to tell us how this concept of meaning needs to be understood and how mistaken our understanding is about this concept, when viewed from the background of his early work Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. We will just see in a couple of slides some what happened during this period, after his return to Cambridge in 1929, this was called by many scholars as a transitional period in his intellectual life, because he was not completely withdrawn from his Tractatus period, some of those ideas still continues to have its influence on his thought during this period as well. And the important concerns of these days include philosophy of mathematics, language and meaning, psychological concepts and the concept of knowledge. Even in philosophical investigations, we find that Wittgenstein is involved in the analysis of psychological concepts. Then again an important word in this transitional period is philosophical remarks, written in 1932 but published posthumously in 1964. And afterwards this work, which questions the view that understanding language is a mental process. The idea of family resemblance which occupies a central place in his philosophical investigations makes his first appearance in this book, Philosophical Grammar, which actually has been very elaborately discussed in I mean rather not in a typical philosophical manner, because he writes in a very unique manner. So, here again he discusses this concept, he analyzes this notion, he introduces the concept of family resemblances in philosophical investigations as well. Particularly in the context of the very problem, which analyzes the problem of the craving for the tendency for generalization, which is at the root of many philosophical confusions. Then another important work during this period is the blue book, which refers to the theory of meaning as use, which is central to his later philosophy. This blue book as I already mentioned was handed down to his students and it was basically circulated as a course material for his students, but later on it was published as blue book. And now let us see some of the important features of his later view, where he conceives language in a very interesting manner, which is also in a sense very significantly different from his earlier perception. So, he rejects the picture theory of language, which was propagated by the Tractatus and it was challenging, was opposing the very concept of picturing relationship, which was very central to his understanding of language in the Tractatus and there is not one logic of language. See the Tractatus was preoccupied with this problem, what is that, that essence of language and Wittgenstein has proposed that the essence of language consist in its logic. So, the logical structure of language is something, which Wittgenstein was trying to discover in his early work. So, there is one logical structure, there is a single structure, which all language, all linguistic expression should be sharing according to Tractatus, but here in this work he adopts a very different position, he says that there is no single essence, but language has got several functions. It can be used for several activities, do things to do many things, not just one thing. And in this context the theory of meaning also undergoes drastic changes rather than the picture theory of meaning, which we have seen in the previous lecture, when it comes here he proposes a kind of meaning, a kind of understanding of the notion of meaning, where he links this notion with the concept of use. So, meaning does not consist in the picturing relation between propositions and facts, but in the use of an expression in the multiplicity of practices, which go to make up language. So, there are several things we do with language. For example, I may ask you to come, so it is a kind of order or I may request you please come, that is again a kind of you know expression, which I make or I would say that go, stand up, bring that book, all these kinds of expressions I make in language and I do many other things like when I write a poem for example, that is again a thing, which I do with language or when I paint then again I am using language. So, we use language in different ways in different context and situations in our life and Wittgenstein is now trying to point towards these multiplicity of users language finds in a diversity of life context in our day to day life. No single essence of language can be discovered. So, that is categorical to his later position, there is no single concept, there is no single essence. Language is intrinsically connected with all human activities and behavior or practical affairs and relations, personal and public activities, relationship with others and the world. And this is what is being this aspect of language, this aspect of is necessary interconnectedness with our life, day to day practices, belief systems, conventions, customs and many other things which we do in our day to day life. This is what Wittgenstein calls as forms of life, there is a form of life every language or every language game later on he introduces the term language game, every language game he says presupposes a form of life. A form of life is a context in which people come together and there is this activity of life going on it is a very dynamic context where language is being used I will explain it in this lecture itself. The later philosophy Wittgenstein himself raises certain questions and he says I quote what is your aim in philosophy to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle. So, with this one sentence Wittgenstein announces his intention in his later period this is the purpose as a philosopher he ends it showing the fly the way out of the fly bottle. There is some problem can imagine the fly inside a bottle how anxious it would be, how uncomfortable it would be. So, there are certain a similar kind of state of uncomfort we all experience due to certain perplexities, metaphysical confusions we have and Wittgenstein ultimately tells us that all these confusions and perplexities are due to linguistic confusions that not using your language in the way it should be used or it is used by an ordinary life day to day life situations. So, when you deviate face problems and you encounter issues. So, as a philosopher is trying to point out that there is a problem there is you are deviating from the normal use of language and hence you are in trouble. So, as a philosopher Wittgenstein says that I am trying to show the fly out of the fly bottle philosophical problems are not empirical problems according to Wittgenstein. They are solved rather by looking into the workings of our language and that in such a way as to make us recognize those workings not that in empirical problems you find a definite solution to the problems. You address the problem and find a solution to the problem by following the logic of the problem we can say, but here a philosophical problems are not empirical problem. They are resolved in a different way just by looking at what into the workings of our ordinary language and philosophical problems will vanish when the workings of language are properly grasped. So, one has to arrive at a proper understanding of how language works in ordinary day to day situations. In philosophy we should not seek to explain, but only to describe and these are the primary concerns of this later period with regard to the conception of language. Language as a representation of reality which is the Tractatus conception is rejected in favor of a notion that emphasizes on the diversity of users language has in our life, diversity of a multiplicity of context in which language is being used. So, this is emphasized and with regard to the conception of meaning again is a central issue in Tractatus. As a name as consisting in the picturing the world is rejected in favor of an outlook that asserts that the meaning of a word is its use in the language. So, something like a use theory I mean though it is a little difficult to call it a theory, but still the emphasis is on use in this multiplicity of context. And Wittgenstein's preoccupation with language was not as a field of inquiry in its own right, but because philosophical problems arise when we use it in the inappropriate and unusual manners. So, this is what I pointed out all philosophical problems are understood as confusions created as a result of using language in unusual manner. So, Wittgenstein as a philosopher wants and says that it is a job of a philosopher to show to expose that these are the problems these you deviate from here from the usual way in which you should have use language, but now you are not doing it that is why this confusions occur. Why there is a breakdown of the machinery of language? So, that is a primary concern for a philosopher. So, he examines why language breaks down or the language as a vehicle of or understanding the world it it it seems to be functioning smoothly. And why the question and the answer needs to be found out by analysis, but analysis is not the logical analysis which tractors carried out, but it is just looking at it just trying to understand how language needs to be actually used. And what is the problem in this particular use where you encounter a problem where apparently language is not being used in the same way. So, that is the problem here and here in this context the certain important questions are what is language? Does language have an essence? What is meaning and is it the essence of language? This is the way in which tractors even understood language and meaning. It is very interesting to see the problem of meaning how Wittgenstein addresses this problem in his later philosophy. I have already pointed out that Wittgenstein's emphasis is on use in the multiplicity of context. So, he says that every word is not a name which is a Tractorian view actually in tractors there is a one to one isomorphic relationship between the structure of language and the structure of the word, where every word in language corresponds to an object in the world. Since it corresponds to an object the word in language is treated as a name. So, in one sense we can say that in the logical sense every word is a name according to tractors. The later period rejects this conception it says that every word is not a name and the object corresponding to the word is not the meaning of the word. And again this is a quote it is important to note that the word meaning is being used illicitly if it is used to signify the thing that corresponds to the word that is to confound the meaning of a name with the bearer of the name. When Mr. N. N. Dice one says that the bearer of the name dies not that the meaning dies. So, it is very simple elucidation very interesting Wittgenstein exposes the difficulties in conceiving the word meaning relationship the word and object relationship as a relationship which consists in the meaning and its expression relationship. So, here says that when the bearer of the name when Mr. N. N. Dice one says that the bearer of the name dies not that the meaning dies. So, here again this is a quote from philosophical investigations 43 for a large class of cases though not for all in which we employ the word meaning it can be defined thus the meaning of a word is its use in the language. And the meaning of a name is sometimes explained by pointing to its bearer sometimes it happens, but it is not a always so. And it is interesting to see what the concept of meaning would look like in this context. Because it is related to the public practice of utterance and all that makes this practice possible see there are two things here the public practice of utterance which means language use and every language use according to Wittgenstein presupposes a public practice there is no private language which would see very briefly later. So, there is no concept of private language every linguistic expression is necessarily public and all that makes this practice possible. Because it is a it presupposes a context in public life in social life then an expression becomes legitimate only if it successfully fulfills certain purposes in which it is being used in a particular context only then we can call it as a meaningful expression. So, that is the case that context is extremely important to understand the meaning of the expression this context actually is the context of day to day life. And day to day life is itself is a very diverse phenomenon there are several things we do in life say for example when I go out to watch a movie then after that I go to a book shop and get some books then after that I go to participate in a political agitation then after that I go back to my office plays and work all these are the things which I do probably in a 1, 2, 3 hours I might take just 2, 3 hours to do all these things which I do in my life and in all such context each context is unique film watching film going to the book shop participating in an agitation going and working in office all these are different context and I would be doing different things in different context the same expressions would be used in these different context to mean different things. And how do we know the meaning of these expressions only if you know in what context it is being used see one best example I can cite is the Wittgenstein himself actually does it difference between 2 context in life say for example suppose if I had a disease I go to the hospital and get some medicines and I am cured of this disease. And when I was talking with a friend the friend asked me so how are you know I would tell him that ok God saved my life then after 5 minutes again I would tell him that doctor saved my life. So I have made 2 expressions God saved my life or doctor saved my life so my friend could actually argue with me just 5 minutes back you said God saved your life and now you are saying doctor saved your life so who actually saved your life tell us is there a contradiction between saying that God saved my life and doctor saved my life Wittgenstein would say that there is no contradiction actually they are 2 different games when I say God saved my life I am playing the language game of Legion where everyone who participates in that language game understands what I mean I do not really mean that you know God as a person who comes and gives me medicines and cure me everyone understands it who are sensible in who are who are reasonable sense to understand what goes on in our day to day life would understand this expression what I mean by that. When I say doctor saved my life again you know the doctor would have made the proper diagnosis and a prescribed me the proper kind of medicine so in that sense also the expression doctor saved my life is quite valid and meaningful. So both these expressions are meaningful so Wittgenstein says that only thing is they belong to 2 different language games and one has to understand that they actually belong to 2 different language games otherwise you might get confused and this understanding that they belong to 2 different language game is a almost a common sensible understanding like all of us know that there is no apparently there is no contradiction between this but Tractorian view if you remember would insist that the first expression God saved my life is nonsensical and probably the other expression doctor saved my life is probably a meaningful expression because I understand this doctor X for example doctor X there is a person called doctor X and he saved the patient's life by diagnosing the disease properly and prescribing the proper medicines. So it is a quite sensible expression why the other expression is meaningless according to the early position but now Wittgenstein says that these 2 expressions are expressions that happen in 2 different context and these context are important in deciding what do they mean they actually do mean different things. Language is employed by the different people for different ends like scientists, poets, politicians, engineers, workers etcetera they all use in different ways and language is the instrument of human purposes and needs it is actually an instrument by means of which we do so many we do many things in this life we gains certain things we have certain projects through language we try to sort of materialize them. And philosophers concern is with the instrument itself with language itself what happens why there are certain confusions so philosophers they are cautious about the fact that language needs to be understood in its actual life context. So wherever there is a confusion the philosopher should insist that just look in what sense in that particular context language is being used once you look at it there would not be any confusion. He vehemently opposes the possibility of arriving it a unitary account of language which Tractatus thought it could an account which explains the whole working of a language in terms of a single theoretical model as Tractatus did with the structure of a universal proposition. Which is a multiplicity of different activities opposes a theory of language which was subscribe to by the Tractatus and here what is the mistaken view of language. So philosophical investigations begin it begins with the critic of Agastine's conception of language actually the first para of this book. Egenstein makes a reference to Egenstein's conception of language where in this account which is very close to the Tractarian view the view that the essence of language lies beneath the surface the hidden essence to be discovered by means of analysis. This is what precisely Tractatus holds it says that language a kind of logical analysis of language needs to be conducted in order to arrive at the depth grammar the semantic structure which is being covered and disguised by the syntactical structure. The view that there is something like a final analysis of our forms of languages. So this is what Tractatus did which is opposed by the later conception. So here to see Agastine's conception of language the function of languages being identified as representing a reality language represents a reality such a kind of representational relationship presupposes that you already possess a kind of private language. Say for example when the child understands something as fire for example the child it presupposes the child already possesses a kind of private language. So the existence of private language is presupposed by this representationalistic reductionistic conception of language held true by Agastine and many others including Tractatus. And here learns a language by making association between words and objects when an elder teaches the child that this is fire pointing out to a fire the child learns it as fire by associating between words and objects. So this word object association this process itself presupposes that the child is already initiated to a kind of process of learning or process of language use where it is being trained to understand or live in a particular context and participate in that particular context with certain meaningful purposes. Investigations opposes both and it emphasizes on language games and forms of life. Now let us come to this question what is language? As I mentioned it is not one uniform thing defined in terms of an essence or universal logical structure. Language is a host of different activities I have already explained all these things. We use language to do many things in many or different context and these different activities are the different games we play in language these are called by Wittgenstein as language games a very famous expression in 20th century philosophy even in contemporary philosophy. To account for the multiplicity of users and the relationship with the different context of their users the term language game is introduced. So on the one hand there is a multiplicity of games we play when we use language and relationship with different context of their use then again there is another interesting aspect which we are going to discuss is the rule following activity because every game is unique in terms of its unique its definite rule structure. So it follows a rule or the participants follow certain rules. Which is this rules that make a language or a particular game a different from other games and this rule following activity is actually a public activity. So Wittgenstein is being emphatic about it that you know language use is all is a public activity it is a matter of participating in a public endeavor. Again language belongs as much to our natural history as walking, eating or drinking. So this is quite famous a very important and interesting view he introduces here he says that language is part of man's natural history like eating or drinking and walking. And it is part of our social behavior of our human species and it evolves like an institution with the various things we do with it and we employ it for different purposes for carrying out the various life activities in different situations and circumstances. The background of human requirements in the natural environment enables its evolution. So there is a background of human requirements the life which we carry out which we all participate where other people objects nature climate everything comes into the picture. So in that context the background of this is the background of human requirement in the natural environment enables the evolution of language. Because we carry out or we all participate in this wonderful phenomenon called life by means of using language different context different way different purposes. Again look at its ordinary functioning as I already mentioned see how it normally functions in the various context people employ language for various purposes like narrating, questioning, describing, praying, expressing gratitude or anger, report, affirm or deny all these are the things which we do with language. So you cannot pinpoint one of these activities as the function of language which Tractatus did Tractatus asserted that the picturing function is the function of language the essence of language. But here we can say refuses to do that he would say that all these together constitute what language is and it is extremely difficult and impossible to narrow down one activity and consider it as the essence of all linguistic activities. It examines how people use them in this context and do not explain just see this is Wittgenstein's position do not explain just see how it actually works how language actually works as meanings have to be found in its use. His method is quite unique and philosophical investigation actually is not a work on philosophical theory Wittgenstein is not explicitly propagating any theory it is but at the same time it introduces a theoretical position and it also is an application of a method Wittgenstein applies a method the method of language analysis and this method is introduced through various elucidations how language games works in our life. So here he has certain artificial examples of patterns of linguistic activity which he cites to make his point clear an elementary model of working of language where the various examples are like the conversations that happen between a worker and his assistant a carpenter and his assistant in the working place. So the carpenter just calls out names spanner so it is just an utterance spanner but the assistant knows what the carpenter wants so he goes and takes the spanner and brings it. So just an utterance spanner this it is evoked such an activity that the another person who here heard it went and took the took an object and brought it and gave it to the carpenter with which the carpenter has done certain things. So this entire context of use and the process of use is what is constitutive of meaning. So it is an elementary model of working language example the language of the builder and his assistant how certain utterances of the builder evokes a definite forms of responses in the assistant in certain context of life and here to understand this process Wittgenstein introduces concepts like language games and forms of life. So it is a very interesting concept the notion of language games. Language use can be compared to a game and like any other game cricket, volleyball, football all these are games we play and all these games follow certain definite rules it is a set of definite rule that makes a game different from another. Now participants in conversations are compared to players who perform certain types of moves based on certain rules. So like those who play cricket would all be following certain rules and all the moves they make as part of being a participant in the game are rule governed. Similarly participants in a conversation in a particular context of life also do follow certain definite rules refers to the context in which people use language the things they do and actually by engaging in conversation. So here is a quote from philosophical investigation I quote but how many kinds of sentence are there? Say assertion question and command there are countless kinds countless different kinds of use of what we call symbols words sentences and this multiplicity is not something fixed given once for all but new types of language new language games as we may say come into existence and others become obsolete and get forgotten. Here the term language game is meant to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity or a form of life. So he introduces the term language game to bring in that dynamism that is involved in our daily use of language we do many things and see multiplicity is how something is nothing is fixed here which is in the sense that given once for all we keep changing rules sometimes but again it is not arbitrary no changes arbitrary everything happens in a context in a context of others are also involved in it it is a public practice. So the praxis aspect is being emphasized by Wittgenstein and here again he gives examples of primitive forms of language like the child learning to use of words and also the builder assistant language which I mentioned just now language is also compared with the tool box where there are several tools like the hammer, square and blue pot which each one of them has its unique purpose and role similarly words have multiplicity of different uses and he points to such primitive forms in order to remove the mental mist surrounding our ordinary use of language. In such primitive forms thinking appears less confusing. So Wittgenstein's method is quite unique here he actually sort of invites our attention to these such primitive forms of languages which are very simple he gives an example where a builder and his assistant are involved in a game a kind of a game. So this is actually a representative of what happens in much more complicated day to day ordinary languages. I mean there is no reference to any structure a universal structure but this is essentially the way in which language functions that the context is involved the multiplicity is aspect is emphasized the conventions and customs aspects are also emphasized etcetera. These simple primitive forms are not completely separated from the complex natural languages they are only different in kind they help us to understand how our language functions. So now in this context Wittgenstein warns us about certain possible confusions philosophical confusions which might be there due to our craving for generality. The human mind has a tendency to generalize certain things and the tendency to search for the common essence of all expression. So this is a tendency which was quite visible and explicit in the tractatus and tractatus followed the logic of you know it was concerned about the logic of language the logical structure which is the essence of all linguistic expressions. So here in philosophical investigations Wittgenstein finds that this craving for generality is the result of or the cause of all philosophical confusions. The concept of general image or general idea which we form the common feature of all particulars of the same kind say for example a platonic essence for instance or meaning of the word conceiving the meaning of a word as an image or a thing correlated with that word either there is an image in my mind or an object in the world. So wherever you know you have this word is being fixed with something either in the world or in the mind words are proper names and we confuse the bearer of the name with the meaning of the name. So this is another very important confusion in philosophy and Wittgenstein causes these are all the result of our craving for generality not all meaningful uses of language are meaningful in the same way. So you cannot find an essence of language use not all words are names the thing or person that is a bearer of the name is not the meaning of the name and here there is a quote from philosophical investigation I read. You talk about all sorts of language games but have nowhere set what the essence of a language game and hence of language is. What is common to all these activities and what makes them into language or parts of language and Wittgenstein Sinsel gives an answer to this query. He says that the craving for generality are related to I mean the they are responsible for the philosophical confusions he says that confusions arising from the tendency to search for a senses problems related to abstraction. So that we the mind has the ability to abstract so we think that corresponding to our abstract concepts like for example there are several chairs in front of me but there is one abstract concept of chair and corresponding to that abstract concept of chair there must be an abstract idea or entity called chair somewhere either like as Plato said in a much more real domain or in my mind then again a separate and hidden realm of reality which is essential. So Wittgenstein here says that these are all confusions what you have to do is look how these words are used in actual language and he opposes all forms of essentialism and a priori generalizations. So here there is again a quote essence of language game I quote and this is true instead of producing something common to all that we call language I am saying that these phenomena have no one thing in common which makes us use the same word for all but that they are related to one another in many different ways and it is because of this relationship or these relationships that we call them all language. So there are different so he actually emphasizes on a context instead of looking for what is common he says that they are related to one another in many different ways not just one way in which they are all related so that that one way can be identified as the essence of these activities but there are different ways and the metaphor of games is quite unique to explain metaphor is used in order to explain certain very interesting things about the nature of language different things we call games like for example board games card games ball games Olympic games what is common that is the question and he says for if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all but similarities relationships and a whole series of them at that to repeat do not think but look do not think but look this is Wittgenstein's advice as a philosopher he says that if you look for essence you will not find anything if you look for the common essence you do not find anything but you would rather find similarities and here he introduces a very interesting concept called family resemblances. So what he says is and the result of this examination just looking at it we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing sometimes over similarity overall similarities sometimes similarities of detail and here I quote philosophical investigation 67 I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities than family resemblances for the various resemblances between members of a family built features color of eyes gate temperament etcetera overlap and criss-cross in the same way and I shall say games form a family. So just take a day to day example there are games like volleyball football and basketball so they are all ball games but what is the essence of a ball game if you really ask for an essence of a ball game you do not find anything apart from the fact that they are all using balls but because you know they follow different logics different rule structures in volleyball you can touch your the ball with your hand which is not allowed in football and vice versa probably. So these are the things which though in spite of all of them are being called ball games they have diverse rule structures but still there are some similarities some resemblances and Wittgenstein compares it with the resemblances among the members of a family they are called family resemblances. So no essence but only family resemblances language use is a rule governed activity that cannot be defined in exact terms the same concept may have a range of different applications in our use this is where you know the lack of exact boundaries are being exposed. Every form of a life form of life is a context of life where people are bound to each other and to the life context by means of conventions and rules where they carry out their various goals and projects in the multiple city and the very complex life situations. Again in a game of chess giving the names of the chess figures is not enough in language the use of linguistic science are rule bound one has to learn how the figures this can move on the chess board the rules that regulate these movements. So just by naming or just by knowing and learning the names like this is a horse this is a king this is not sufficient what rules does do these various figures in chess what rules do they actually follow again meaning is not hidden there is no concept of hidden assences here like games the rules of language use are also public conventional and customary and rules are regulative mechanisms of a community. So the very reference to the concept of rule indicates that there is a reference to a community there is a reference to a society where people live and mutual relationships and conventions and customs all these are presupposed. So what Wittgenstein says is that language acquires meaning through such interactive context in the context of life where people are involved in a social life how do we learn rules and follow them how do we know that we are following them correctly are they in the mind are they in duty these are some of the questions we can raise and Wittgenstein is very categorically about them he says that obeying a rule is a practice and a practice is necessarily something which happens in a public domain. So I cannot say that I will follow a practice privately I can do that but then the moment I recognize it as a practice that recognition presupposes a public domain. So here obeying a rule is a practice no external or internal authority in deciding what is a rule we learn it by practicing by participating in the form of life. So there is an active form of life and by participating in that form of life we learn it rules cannot be observed privately they presuppose a context of life. So this is where Wittgenstein opposes the concept of private language which he says that I quote and hence also obeying a rule is a practice and to think one is obeying a rule is not to obey a rule there is a difference between just thinking that I am obeying a rule and I am actually obeying a rule they are do two different things 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. So here this concept of private language is something which Wittgenstein vehemently opposes he says that but could we also imagine a language in which a person could write down or give vocal expressions to his inner experiences his feelings modes and the rest for his private use individual words of this language are to refer to what can only be known to the person speaking to his immediate private sensations. So another person cannot understand the language and Wittgenstein says how does a human being learn the meaning of the names of sensations of the words paint for example. See the possibility of having a private language the possibility of having a private language is that you know my feelings are my private feelings no one else can know my feelings. Now the question is whether I can articulate this feelings to myself privately and here he says that how does he raises a question in this he actually opposes this view and he raises a question how does a human being learn the meaning of the names of sensations of the word paint for example. Our words are connected our words connected with the primitive the natural expressions of the sensations and used in their place when one say he gave a name to his sensation one forgets that a great deal of state setting in the language is presupposed if the mere act of naming is to make sense. So when I find a name for my sensation a particular sensation and still that process of naming a sensation presupposes already an initiation into a particular language that is what he says a great deal of state setting in the language is presupposed if the mere act of naming is to make sense. So language is public there is some more elucidations Wittgenstein says I call a private sensation I have S and notes down S whenever I have it there is a private sensation I have and I am just call it naming it S and whenever I have it I write it down in my diary S. Now does this note mean anything that is a question which Wittgenstein raises he says that a note has a function and this S so far has none what reason we have for calling S the sign for a sensation for sensation is a word of our common language not of one intelligible to me alone. So the use of this word stands in need of a justification which everybody understands justification which everybody understands which means that it is a practice and it would not help either to say that it need not be a sensation that when he writes S he has something and that is all that can be said has and something also belong to our common language. So they are all part of common languages so whenever we try to make an expression of our so called innermost and private feelings the moment we try to express them I can do that only in a language which is public even if I give an expression like S that naming process presupposes a state setting an initiation into a kind of linguistic activity. So in the end when one is doing philosophy one gets to the point where one would like just to emit an inarticulate sound but such a sound is an expression only as it occurs in a particular language game which could now be described. So Wittgenstein in this context he says that language is public and socially governed and rule governed and expressions make sense only if they are used in a rule governed manner and not the logic of language as discussed by Tractatus but the grammar of language that constitutes the norms for meaningful language use which is being emphasized in the later work. In grammar the expression he introduces in this context is grammar and this is this grammar is not the kind of logical manic logical structure which Tractatus discusses it actually refers to the complexities of life context in which language finds its various users. So in grammar language games are played according to the adherence of rules in the context of form of life and before just we conclude let us see what would be the role of philosophy according to Wittgenstein in this context in according to philosophical investigations. It says that philosophical problems arise when language goes on a holiday when we do not use language in the usual sense in which it is used when we do not use language or when we start using language by detaching ourselves from the day to day life practices from forms of life which constitute the natural context of language use. Then language is used in an unusual sense philosophy brings out the confusions. So here philosopher has a role or philosophy has a role it brings out the confusions not by the logical analysis of propositions as done by Tractatus but by pointing to the reality of language it is used in ordinary life. And it does away with all explanation and description alone must take its place and he says philosophy simply puts everything before us and neither explains nor deduces anything since everything lies open to view there is nothing to explain for what is hidden for example is of no interest to us one might also give the name philosophy to what is possible before all new discoveries and inventions. So here very unique conception of philosophy he does not mystify the role of philosophers he says that philosopher has only a simple role just to point out that you are now deviating you are derailed. The work of the philosopher consists in assembling reminders for a particular purpose. So just reminds you that you are going astray here then if one try to advance theses in philosophy it would never be possible to debate them because everyone would agree to them and philosophical problems are not like empirical problems I have already pointed out which have got definite solutions they are solved by looking into the workings of our language not by making an analysis in terms of logic and trying to find out the exact correspondence between language and kind of extra linguistic reality but just by solve they are solved by looking into the workings of language. Philosophy makes us recognize those workings of our language despite of an urge to misunderstand them and the problems are solved not by giving new information but by arranging what we always know and we can conclude Wittgenstein's position of philosophy in his later period with this statement philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. So Wittgenstein's we are concluding our discussions on the philosophy of Wittgenstein here. So he has presented two different views and Wittgenstein as once mentioned that when he published he wanted to publish his later writings particularly the investigations along with Tractatus his early writing just to show that how different his later views are and on many occasions Wittgenstein criticizes his early position but at the same time one cannot say that it is a total deviation there are certain similarities there are certain things which he retains which he had subscribed to in his early period as well. But definitely the notion of logical analysis of language is abandoned and instead Wittgenstein is prepared to see the diversity of language use the multiplicity of language use that happen in day to day life. So we are concluding our discussion on Wittgenstein's philosophy this lecture. Next lecture will be on the contributions of logical positivists where again Wittgenstein remained as a very major influence and no doubt Wittgenstein still remains as a major influence in contemporary philosophers. Thank you.