糖心视频

We all know what we mean by a game. Or do we? In a lunchtime session run by Mr Cavendish, the Year 8 scholars got stuck into the tricky question of words and their meanings.

First, the students proposed different possible ways of defining the apparently simple concept of a game. Several argued that it is always a source of 鈥榚ntertainment鈥�, some suggested it must involve an element of 鈥榗ompetition鈥�, while others felt it would always provide 鈥榤ental stimulation鈥�. The scholars then began to challenge each definition in turn. What constitutes entertainment, for example, is likely to be highly subjective and will depend on personal opinion; although some might be entertained by The Hunger Games, as depicted by Suzanne Collins in her novels, many 鈥� like the fictional characters participating 鈥� are unlikely to feel the same. Similarly, most would agree that I-Spy is a game,聽 yet, would not be described as competitive.

Dipping into excerpts from Just Think by Philip West, the students explored a more difficult question: does this matter? Do we need to define anything to a point that it has a universal meaning? Or would it be okay to have a generalisation of the idea that is mainly understood?

Most students felt that words and their meaning do matter. Definitions can be set so we can reference them and use them within contexts. This can help us understand concepts, cultures or people. More importantly, it can help within the aspect of law to justify a defendant in court.

In his book Philosophical Investigations published in 1953, Cambridge philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein considered games and asked, 鈥淲hat is common to them all?鈥� He identified that there is no specific element shared by all games. Some are competitive, some merely for entertainment, some to stimulate and others to develop skills. He compared the word 鈥済ame鈥� to a rope with multiple fibres. Each fibre overlaps with the other fibres, but no singular fibre covers the whole length of the rope. So, said Wittgenstein, there is no one definition of game. Everyone has a separate concept of it.

But Wittgenstein also argued that we can鈥檛 use the word 鈥済ame鈥� for anything we want. This is because to hold a conversation we still need to agree on the meaning of the word.

What do you think? Do we need to rely on an Oxford English Dictionary for the answers or just know enough to hold a conversation?