Wittgenstein Re-Considered: The Chess Piece

Wittgenstein: This is a chess piece. It is called the King.

Belcher: I see this piece in your hand. But what are the King's properties? That is, how do you define the King?

Wittgenstein: The definition of the piece depends on how you use the piece. The King is a piece in the game of chess, it's use is how it's defined. The use of the King is to move one space on this 8 x 8 two dimensional board, you see. I will move him one space as so, you see, this is what a King is. The function is the definition, the use determines its meaning.

Belcher: But how do you know that this use is appropriate for this piece in the game? In other words, how do you determine that some uses are valid while others invalid? I can use the King to move seven spaces, like so. You see, I can move the King to leap across the board and take your Queen. How are these not uses of the piece?

Wittgenstein: The King is following certain rules, these rules are what define the game and the King. What you propose are not uses of the piece because they do not follow the rules of the game. It is an explicit rule of the game chess that the King can only move one piece, just as it is a special explicit rule that if the King has not moved in the game yet, and the bishop and knight are out of the way, and if the rook has not been moved, you can use the "Castle rule", which is the rule that the King moves not one but two spaces and the rook moves to the adjacent side of the King. These are the explicit rules that the use of pieces make possible. A King cannot move seven spaces as you have done, because doing so is not a rule of the game.

Belcher: But, then, how do you define the rules? What determination goes into rule-legislating? How is it that the special "Castle" move is allowed while not a "Queen Castle" move?

Wittgenstein: Rules depend on their uses, the context of their employment, the purposes they fulfill when you prescribe them. Just as the rule for greeting someone in a social context is to say "Hello!" or "Hey" or "Good morning", one has to be in the appropriate context of greeting with the appropriate social dispositions for these words to be meaningful. The chess rules for the King only make sense when one has the King in hand, when one is in the appropriate context of chess playing. To know the context of application is to know the uses of the word, just as know the uses of the King.

Belcher: So how do you know the context of application? If the rules are determined by the use of the word and if the use of the word is determined by the rule, how is this not a vicious semantic circle? If a rule is contingent upon its context of application, how do you know the uses of the King? To know the uses of the King you have to know how to define the King!

Wittgenstein: Indeed, you would need to know what the function of a King is. You need to know its uses in the game.

Belcher: But then we are back at the original question! How do you define the King? If this is a King, how are its properties known? We are back at the beginning, that a piece is known through its use! But now we are using this as determination of the rules and usage, while the rules and usage depends on its functional definitions! You sir, are engaged in circular logic. No wonder you are so hard to defeat, your theory of meaning is viciously circular!