Wittgenstein's language games: Words don't have fixed meanings tied to things or ideas but derive their meaning from how we use them in particular contexts, like playing different games with unique rules.
Why do we misunderstand each other in seemingly simple conversations?
One of my favorite philosophers, Ludwig Wittgenstein, argued that words' meanings aren't simply a direct mapping to objects or abstract definitions. Instead, they come from how we use them in specific contexts, like games with unique rules and goals.
For example, when we say, "Don't worry, everything's gonna be fine," sometimes, we are not playing the "Rational Prediction from Facts" game but the "Comforting people with words first" game.
Not understanding what kind of "language game" someone is involved in oftentimes can lead to arguments. For instance, when one says to their partner, "You're so unreliable," their partner might think they're playing the "Stating Facts Game" while they are actually playing the "Seeking Reassurance Game." Similarly, when one says, "I hate you", they are usually playing the "Expressing emotion game" instead of the "Stating Facts Game".
Wittgenstein believed many philosophical problems also arise from confusing "language games" with "language as absolute truth." For example, when philosophers ponder on "Where does the present go when it becomes the past?" they often develop complex theories to explain the passage of time. However, Wittgenstein would argue we're playing the wrong language game here because they use spatial language to describe time, leading to confusing theories.
I find Ludwig Wittgenstein's concept of language games elegant because it explains many confusions and misunderstandings we encounter. I also find it useful to interpret this idea as "Sometimes you can only learn something by doing it because you will never understand it if you are not in that game."