property law and the language game

I had the worst paper of my exams today. property. and i worked the hardest for it, even though i have never been known for assiduity.

I was fuming after the exam but I just tried to keep it within me.

The thing is I knew my stuff. I could have done 4 questions easy

Here was the situation. conundrum. whatever you wanna call it.

1. Problem question on adverse possession and title to chattels found attached to the land.
Simple. Easy.
Problem – I was lazy to read the whole question

2. Enter simple one line essay question
Restrictive covenants, nuisance and planning system.
Easy. The problem is the question wanted us to explore the RELATIONSHIP between the three.

I only realised halfway how hard a question it was and I just gave up

Mind blank

Fucked

Dead.

----------------------------------

so when i got home, i decided to put law on hold and continue my study on Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.

again, as ive always maintained and have written elsewhere, a reason why examples can work better than definitions is that a definition must be able to define what the thing in question is not - it must be able to say what is excluded from the ambit of the definition.

here is another example of my asseveration which just occurred to me:

Wittgenstein defines “language game” by giving examples of language games. He lays out examples of language games and uses the term in context to convey its meaning. What is interesting about this is that it seems to be a language-game itself. That is, Wittgenstein is using a language-game, a variant on the sort of thing he speaks of in passage 7, to elucidate what a language game is.

The explanation is recursive, as is the definition. Perhaps Wittgenstein does this to avoid the problems of definition. As aforementioned, to define something, you must be able to say what it is not. This is impossible with language.