How would you explain to
somebody || someone
what a game is?
I imagine you would describe
games to him, and you
might conclude your
50
¤ description with
,
“
all
that || this || these
and the like we call games”.
And do you know any more yourself?
Is it
perhaps only || just that you
can't
tell || explain to
the other
person || man
exactly what a game is?
But this is
not || isn't ignorance || This,
however, is not || isn't ignorance || isn't ignorance, however.
You don't know the boundaries because none are
drawn.
As I
say, || said,
you may
– || , for some
purpose or other
– || , draw a
boundary.
Do you thereby make it possible for the first time to use
the concept? || But is this necessary
in order to make it into a useful
concept?
Not in the least || By no
means || Not at all, || – unless
it be || you
mean, useful for
that || this
particular purpose.
Just as
little as the unit of length
“1 pace” was || the unit of length “1
pace” was not made useful for || given a proper use for
the first time
by the person who || when
someone gave the
definition
, || : “1
pace = 75 cm”.
And if you say
, || :
“but before that
surely it wasn't an exact unit
of length”
, || ,
then I answer: all right, then it was an
inexact one.
– || –
Although you haven't
yet given me
the || a definition of
exactness.