How would you explain to somebody || someone what a game is? I imagine you would describe games to him, and you might conclude your

Ts-226,50

¤ 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.