Richard Henninge expressed interest in a Lit-Ideas 'mini-seminar' on §31 of Wittgenstein's _Philosophical Investigations_. I know that he was looking forward to Robert Paul's contribution but I humbly offer the following as my contribution. §31 is typical of the style Wittgenstein adopts in _Philosophical Investigations_. Several perspectives are examined in order to circumscribe an object of interest in order to tease out a particular insight. In §31, W. focuses on the phrase 'This is the king'. This section is part of a series where W. discusses the significance of ostensive definitions. W. begins by observing that the simple fact of telling someone that a particular chess piece is called the king is of no use unless there has been some stage-setting so that all that is left is to identify the shape of the king. But how might one set the stage for identifying which piece is the king? Well, several different possibilities present themselves. One can imagine someone who has learnt the rules of chess by reading a 'How To ..' book and merely needs to associate the shape of the piece to the rules associated with the word 'king'. In this case, the individual is being shown the shape of the piece that corresponds to the word 'king', which in turn corresponds to a set of already learnt rules regarding the king. But one can also imagine another case where someone is a board-game enthusiast and has gradually progressed to the playing of chess. In this particular case, the individual has not learnt the rules of chess but rather has mastered the moves of chess. That is, the individual would know the ways in which the pieces move without being able to articulate those moves in terms of rules. This individual, confronted with a unique chess set might need to have someone identify which piece is the king. Here, the individual is being shown which piece corresponds to the word 'king', which in turn corresponds to a set of moves already mastered. A further or perhaps more accurately previous instance of stage-setting now presents itself. How does one learn about the king in the first place? If I am teaching someone the game of chess and I point to the appropriate piece and say 'This is the king', what is necessary for this to be a meaningful definition? Well, the individual would have to know already what a piece in a game is. The stage-setting would require that the individual be familiar, either through watching or actually playing, other games that involved pieces. At this point, W. adds a significant qualifier, namely, that the individual would have to be familiar with similar things. It isn't exactly clear to what these things are to be similar but I would like to suggest that the individual needs to be familiar with, not a single board game, but similar games. That is, to be able to understand what a game piece is requires a general understanding of how games that include pieces are played. If I have only played checkers, I will assume that the king is played like the pieces in checkers and so it wouldn't even be important to know that this piece is called the king. To be familiar with similar games that involved pieces is to be in a position to understand what a game piece is. Furthermore, to understand what a game piece is makes it possible for one to ask relevantly 'What do you call this?' and to then be told 'This is the king'. There is, then, a great deal of stage-setting that goes into making the statement 'This is the king' meaningful. Or as W. puts it, one has to know how to do something with a piece in order to significantly ask for a name. Having established that the stage-setting that goes into asking for the name of a chess piece includes understanding what a game piece is and either knowing the rules of chess or mastering the moves of chess, W. ends the section with a twist. To what degree does it matter what the name is? If the stage has been set for the playing of chess, can the game be played without settling on the name of the particular pieces? If the game were set up, then one need not have the king identified. And if the game were not yet set up, it still wouldn't matter as long as there were agreement on which pieces went where. Having set the stage, one could manage to play the game of chess without having to be told 'This is the king'. So what does an ostensive definition contribute? Or perhaps more accurately, what is involved in an ostensive definition? Sincerely, Phil Enns Toronto, ON ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html