Re: authenticity again

> > I keep referring to Hegel in interpreting him. I use Hegel as a kind of

>> > base, I suppose, to understand him. However, I see modes of
>> > consciousness in Heidegger as creating, two different language
>> > games (later Wittgenstein), the authentic language game, and the inauthentic

>> > one.
>> So what's difference between the two games?

>There is a language game of subjectivity, and reflection, in which one
>talks about
and thinks about death and the meaning of life. Then there
>is the inauthentic language of daily life. By "language game" I mean a
>kind of conversation with its own implicit rules of language use, not
>something playful. Each kind of conversation evokes a certain kind of
>consciousness. I don't mean to reduce Heidegger to these Wittgensteinian
>concepts, but to relate them.

>..Lois Shawver

*Sorry this is so messy, either I'm working with some really primitive
software, or else I don't really know how to use it, I haven't decided
which yet.*

There seems to be this attempt to make Heidegger clearer by talking about
the 'language games' that are, I gather, somehow implicit in his thought.
I'm not familiar with Wittgenstien, though I'm trying to fix that problem.
What exactly does it mean to call inauthentic or authentic discourse a
'language game'? What does this presuppose about inauthenticity and
authenticity? Does this mean anything like authentic or inauthentic
discourse? Am I wring in thinking that the possiblity of authentic discourse
is (in BT at least), ambiguous at best? Please forgive my ignorance, but
this talk of 'language games' has been a bit of a stumbling block for
me in this discussion.

Anthony Dowler

--- from list [email protected] ---


Partial thread listing: