Evolving a humanistic language game

So the popular illustration goes like this: What if lion learn to speak English, will you understand him? Wittgenstein, a prominent philosopher of 20^th century, says I cannot understand the lion’s language because I don’t understand what his world is like. To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life. Language has natural setting of interrelations that form the language game. You have to be an insider to understand this game, or shall we say the nuance.    

The earlier Wittgenstein proposed that we cannot talk anything meaningful about religion since these are something that is unsaid like moral, good, so on that the use of language are meaningless noise. The later Wittgenstein gave space to religion, and was no longer dismissive of religious talks. He sought to understand the language game in religious context to describe what role does this play in people’s life? This is the point of reference. He insists that religious language game is different from scientific language game hence these shouldn’t be mixed and used as judgment specifically by scientific over religious. Sure, the way language is used in religious context has different connotation but words do belong to the ‘same family’ hence there is an umbilical link that connects despite these negations.  

I reckon we can easily propose, extending the same line of argument, that there is as humans evolve and enlighten an understanding of shared humanist language game. A collective alliance of higher thoughts for instance like democracy, liberty and freedom. This therefore becomes overarching parameter and the basis of evaluation. So this attempt at mystifying religion into some other realm must be checked and negated. Every system that impacts human and seek to control must be demystified and deconstructed. It must be scrutinized and not be allowed to be reduced to problems of semantics. Primitive anachronistic system that create regressive mindset, segregate humans and isolate them from reality and surrounding with juvenile conceptions feeding on insecurities should not be allowed to be mystified, to dehumanize. This kind of special consideration to the system that is having serious impact on humanity because we may not understand its context is a dangerous position especially in the contemporary world we live in. It is diminishing the capacity to think as also negating possibility to evolve into better. It is a source of degradation as also uniquely irresponsible. It suits the purpose of status quoist and exploiters. We have to keep evolving to use humanistic language game as a parameter of reference for any transgression of freedom and liberty.

It is no surprise that Wittgenstein found quite a receptive audience in Britain that seeks to preserve feudal systems like monarchy (in the western euphemism of royal) as also its religion-church as part of democracy. The impasse that UK finds itself in during this pandemic has very much to do with these compromised foundation. It is also not surprising that mediocre Indians latch on to it since they hinge their high morals by mystifying putrid pit (it ofcourse works with colonial angst suffering fattened fluffs ready to patronize lowest denominator –that in itself is extension of racism). For mediocre Indians with limited philosophical tradition (juvenile conception within the mainstream squatter frame are embarrassment that is being constructed as Indian philosophy –absolute waste of time and energy except maybe for the likes of intellectually compromised word defecators. What is relevant, indeed refreshing and humbling, in Indian philosophy is found outside the putrid pit. This is vibrant philosophical-spiritual-social space that traces from Buddha to Nanak to Kabir to all the enlightened saints that in recent times have been severely undermined by castetva forces, indeed desecrated with manipulation of casteist as mahatma –it’s a serious transgression on ideas of enlightenment) mystification was easy way to present itself as exotic. I seriously object to including squatter ensconced juvenile wastrel thoughts and packing it as eastern philosophy. Much enlightened thoughts have come from East Asia. It cannot be mixed and mystified with squatter’s BS. One may argue that other societies from where compelling philosophies have emerged had slavery, colonialism, racism and misogynism so on. Ofcourse it is disturbing to know that beloved Greek philosophers had no problem with slaves or that Kant was racist. Not trying to condone but these were atleast based on physical demarcation, some objective facts, people who were outsiders-defeated soldiers, race or even gender, but caste (extending to casteism –that is cunningly sought to be separated from caste and normalized) is unlike this -as also it is sought to be normalized making it a grievous matter. It finds difference among similar people, living in same society and deviously seeks through insecurities of faith. This makes it a worst inhuman conception that creates a cannibalistic society that seeks lowest reference for the best ideas. A mediocrity thriving society that really haven’t contributed much to humanity except population as cheap labor -a modern form of slavery. The casteist feudal deep state nurtures replicators. Rare instance of smart sensitive people, especially children, are easily cannibalized by the society if not by the family itself. Such is the level of degradation this society has achieved (now you see spewing garbage by youngsters in social media, the worst kind that only religions and market have capacity to produce) but the constant self-assurance as god’s chosen one’s –the incorrigible psychosis of entitlement, is what makes it dangerous.                

Wittgenstein, like Marx, is excitingly insightful and helps us understand the reality better but these arguments are flawed in many ways. There is nothing wrong in intellectualizing (this particularly true in frivolous nature of world we live in wherein the market onslaught posits thinking as waste) indeed it is needed. Where one completely agree with Wittgenstein is the assertion that language cannot be taken for granted. Though he was working in different context (structure of the language is defining the world) but it cannot be denied that language is source of control, it is used to control narration. The reality, history and even future is sought to be controlled through clever use of language and power. Market, religion and politicians -dictators have but used language to control.  Semantics is part of the narration, it is very much the agent of control.     

Philosophers, over the centuries, who have contributed and extended human thinking and thoughts have immensely contributed to evolution of mind therefore the way we associate with the world in heightened responsibility and freedom. All the modern values and progressive thoughts have insights and contribution from enlightened thinkers. Yes one would agree with Arendt for active thinkers, those who engage with emerging reality and threats, and provide compelling humanistic alternatives and insightfully reveal human nature. Wittgenstein is very 20^th century philosopher, and he better stay there. There is truly nothing for him in 21^st century. This is the age of Spinoza. As Einstein wrote, he believed in “Spinoza’s God –who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind”. This calls for an evolved language game that doesn’t seek to mystify but encourage inquisitiveness and engagement. 

PS: unfortunately I got diverted by religion. The original reason to put in Wittgenstein was to bring out the point that when West deals with complicated societies like India (where things are not as apparent as it seems) they tend to be complacent. They borrow words and associate with their own context but it is from a different language game that has its own nuance. Wittgenstein was quite prescient here (again that doesn’t mean it cannot be understood nor it must be mystified, nor that one can completely agree with him). Casteist feudals therefore used words like say nonviolent and vegetarian which in western perception comes out egalitarian but in Indian context extremely disturbing. This different language game (as also patronizing low expectation that fails to get involved…indeed racist) is the reason why there is confusion. What cannot be accepted find acceptance because it is mystified, and there is no attempt made to demystify since it thought to be different alien language game beyond our means to comprehend. This has led to increasing misery as also normalization of worst forms of human dealing. Indeed west owes (particularly Britain) an apology for nurturing worst kind of people and systems. Also, I do admire Wittgenstein but his subtleties seem to have given space to religion to firm itself (I even happen to watch a video of preacher introducing Wittgenstein). This really cannot be a reference for challenges of 21^st century. It must be understood, thanked for the insight, and firmly rejected.