On The Possibility Of Understanding From The View Of Language Game

My thesis is about the possibility of understanding. The discussion begins at the analysis of the use of language. In the following I shall present my idea:a. Meaning is based on useIn the first part I would take the theory of language games of the criticism to Nomenzentrismus and insist on that the meaning can only be based on use. Here the use of language is materialized as game. Although the language games are material, but the so-called materiality does not mean the currentlity, since the current actual games must first be the kinds of games. In this part, I would also discuss the intentionality of language, and try to found the relationship between thought language and object.b. Language gamesIn the second part I would discuss the possibility of language games. This discussion here is carried out in three steps. The first step would take out the possibility of language games through the normal language and explained that the normal language without the special advantage over the formal language is only one possible language, which does not seem like the "Ordinary-Language School" trumpeted. The second step can take out the basis for language games, life form, through the core language games, the game of learning, by which children learn their native language. The third step is discussing the possibility of the limit of language games. In this step, I think the life form can only be accepted and not be explained and the explanation only be the self- recognition from the own limit of the language game. So, the grammar rules are arbitrary and the language is possible, but the possibility must be within the life form.c. A new investigation on the private languageIn the third part I would explain such a view, that the argument of the impossibility of private language is a circumstantial evidence of the language game. The private language is not nothing, but is also not anything. It just cannot be in the public language, because the private language breaks the grammar rule, the publicity of the language game, without which it will not be allowed to participate to the language game. How could the private language be invented in a new public language in order to express itself if it is private and can bring no practical benefits. So, the argument is circular, or a conceptual exclusion, because we can not imagine non-verbal language, especially since we live in the public language games. But we also really can not rule out the possibility of such a language, even if it makes no sense. It can be said that the current language is only a coincidence, and yet it can be not so, although in fact it just is.Finally, the thesis summarized in the conclusion as following:the possibility of understanding is the possibility of use of language, and limit the use of language is provided by the forms of life, which is only accepted as an accidental fact. So the possibility of understanding could only be limited and has to return to current life at the boundary.