Wittgenstein, the philosopher of language, may give us clues for better communication and self-understanding.

In ancient Greece, words like "justice" and "knowledge" were used without hesitation, conveyed through examples. There were no definitions proper. Socrates came along and asked, "What is justice? What is knowledge?" He thought words correspond to things. Examples capture only partial information about a word. This is his "name" theory of language. 

Socrates sought definitions for all instances of a word. Wittgenstein, however, saw Socratic dialogues as a "frightful waste of time," proving nothing. 

Wittgenstein proposed "family resemblances" between instances of a word's use, like traits shared among family members. Consider "game": board games, ball games, video games... no single commonality, but overlapping similarities and affinities. They are all "games". There might be a definition that encapsulate all but would need to be changed for any new "thing" that looks like a "game". Wittgenstein proposes to stop thinking... and to just look... for meaning of what is said. 

A single word can form a family without one common essence. Seeking a single definition is nonsense. Definitions describe usage patterns! Not a word's true nature. Maybe this is why poets help us see new light on known words. And unlike Socrates proposed, word don't correspond to things.  

Language can make us prey to unsound assumptions. How many misunderstood messages? Too many but it's just life. One solution is perspective: seeing words as tools for various uses/usage patterns, not labels attached to things. The meaning of "justice" depends on the activity at hand.

This applies to religion too. It is not about metaphysical claims, but a passionate commitment to living by a certain interpretation of life. Seen like this, religion resembles philosophy to some extent. Religious language expresses practical commitment, not factual/scientific belief. These language games are not necessarily in conflict.

Words are tools... we use to play "language games" in communication. Not by ill intent. But because words are complex and don't have a singular definition. Just as a court uses model cars to explain an accident, we paint mental pictures for others with our words

When a parent tells a scared child, "Don't worry everything is going to be fine," they aren't playing the Rational Prediction From Available Facts game, but rather the Words as an Instrument of Comfort and Security game. So is the colleague playing "Constructive Criticism" or "Office Politics"?

Failing to recognize the language game in front of us creates misunderstandings. It is harder than just "saying it". Even though everyone is better off when the talk is plain and straight. If your partner says, "You never help me. You're so unreliable," they may sound like they're playing the Stating the Facts game, but are playing the Seeking Reassurance game. Context is key. 

Better communicators stay aware of identify language game being played. They can offer or ask for clarification of intent. They can stay flexible and not jump to conclusions based on singular words. They can accept ambiguity. Use meta-communication "I'm not sure how to say this but..." 

What allowed Wittgenstein to adopt this radical view? A lifelong and overriding commitment to clarity and perspective as inherently valuable. Truth maybe matters less than clear sight - really seeing what's before us.

Again, don't think, look