歷經數月及每週討論，把維根斯坦的Philosophical Investigations慢慢讀到78節，不知不覺中思索語詞已經成為潛意識的一部分，以至在性別讀書會讀Susan Sontag的 “Notes on ‘Camp’”時，先想到的不是酷兒和扮裝，而是——這篇散文簡直是PI的補充教材。結果，與其說我在閱讀“Notes on ‘Camp’”，不如說我在透過Sontag回證維根斯坦。
我對《哲學研究》目前非常非常粗略的理解，是：否定語言圖像論，否定一種把個別字詞跟特定對象以指涉關係連結起來的語言觀（「單詞命名對象，句子是這些名稱的組合」、「每個詞都具有一個意義」）。這種語言觀將語言從用法中抽離，尋求詞語意義固定的本質。在語言學習上，可以奧古斯丁在《懺悔錄》中描述自己學習語言的過程為例：
When they (my elders) named some object, and accordingly moved towards something, I saw this and I grasped that the thing was called by the sound they uttered when they meant to point it out. […] Thus, as I heard words repeatedly used in their proper places in various sentences, I gradually learnt to understand what objects they signified; and after I had trained my mouth to form these signs, I used them to express my own desires. (Augustine, Confessions, I. 8.)
以此開篇，維根斯坦發展他對這種「奧古斯丁式語言觀」的批判，提出「語言遊戲」的概念，說明字詞的意義與其「用法」之間的關聯，還有容許字詞意義模糊地帶的「家族相似性」。
Sontag在這篇短文中，給出了58個關於敢曝的說明（我想我還是迴避「定義」這個敏感字眼），爬梳「敢曝」（Camp）這個詞的歷史跟內涵。因此，應該可以推論，在讀完“Notes on ‘Camp’”後，讀者將能明白「敢曝」是怎樣的一種感受力（sensibility）、怎樣的美學、怎樣的風格。
而在此之前，我從未聽過「敢曝」，對它一無所知。——Sontag是怎樣解釋這個詞彙？我又是怎樣習得這個新詞彙的？這兩個問題意識正如我說，在閱讀中時刻盤桓在我心上，使得我不得不把“Notes on ‘Camp’”和《哲學研究》聯想到一處。
在《哲學研究》69節，維根斯坦提到：
How should we explain to someone what a game is? I imagine that we should describe games to him, and we might add: “This and similar things are called ‘games’”. And do we know any more about it ourselves? Is it only other people whom we cannot tell exactly what a game is? — But this is not ignorance. We do not know the boundaries because none have been drawn. To repeat, we can draw a boundary — for a special purpose. Does it take that to make the concept usable? Not at all! (Except for that special purpose.) No more than it took the definition: i pace = 75 cm. to make the measure of length ‘one pace’ usable. And if you want to say “But still, before that it wasn’t an exact measure”, then I reply: very well, it was an inexact one. — Though you still owe me a definition of exactness. （粗體皆為後加）
在“Notes on ‘Camp’”裡，Sontag解釋敢曝的方式，是一種描述（敢曝是怎樣的）而非定義／「draw an exact boundary」（敢曝是什麼）。
（我一直都好喜歡詞源學上define跟boundary之間的連結——de-fine中的fine來自拉丁文的finis，指boundary, end。下定義就是畫出一條詞與詞／詞義與詞義的邊界。）
比如她說：
- Camp is a certain mode of aestheticism. It is one way of seeing the world as an aesthetic phenomenon. (1)
- Camp is as well a quality discoverable in objects and the behavior of persons. (3)
- All Camp objects, and persons, contain a large element of artifices. Nothing in nature can be campy…(7)
- Camp is a vision of the world in terms of style — but a particular kind of style. It is the love of the exaggerated, the “off,” of things-being-what-they-are-not. (8)
（對 “Notes on ‘Camp’”的引用，標記數字皆為原文中列點式書寫的號碼）
除了描述以外，正如《哲學研究》的解說者用舉例說明遊戲（“This and similar things are called ‘games’”），Sontag也以舉例說明什麼是（可以被稱為）敢曝的、什麼不是；例如，她在第40點說明中指出，雖然Genet和Wilde思想相似，但因兩者表達方式的不同，造成前者進不了敢曝殿堂，後者卻是敢曝的指標人物：強調敢曝「風格就是一切」的特徵。她在第4點說明更是直接給了讀者一張清單：
Random examples of items which are parts pf the canon of Camp:
Zuleika Dobson
Tiffany lamps
Scopitone films
The Brown Derby restaurants on Sunset Boulevard in LA
The Enquirer, headlines and stories
Audrey Beardsley drawings
Swan Lake
…
類似的清單還會繼續出現，如：
The hallmark of Camp is the spirit of extravagance. Camp is a woman walking around in a dress made of three million feathers. Camp is the paintings of Carlo Crivelli, with their real jewels and trompe-l’oeil insects and cracks in the masonry. Camp is the outrageous aestheticism of Steinberg’s six American movies with Dietrich, all six, but especially the last, The Devil Is a Woman… (25)
正是從她重複陳列「敢曝」的各式展品，我才漸漸掌握所謂 “the love of the exaggerated, the “off,” of things-being-what-they-are-not” (8) 的說明所謂。
在《哲學研究》70節中，維根斯坦想像的對話者接續69節最後對這種沒有定義／給邊界的說明是否「不精確」的質疑：“But if the concept ‘game’ is uncircumscribed like that, you don’t really know what you mean by a ‘game’.”
對此，維根斯坦是這麼回應的：
When I give the description: “The ground was quite covered with plants” — do you want to say I don’t know what I am talking about until I can give a definition of a plant?
《哲學研究》75節：
What does it mean to know what a game is? […] Isn’t my knowledge, my concept of a game, completely expressed in the explanations that I could give? That is, in my describing examples of various kinds of game; shewing how all sorts of other games can be constructed on the analogy of these; saying that I should scarcely include this or this among games; and so on.
一個定義會比描述（describing）和例子給出更多關於這個詞的知識嗎？我們需要知道定義才能掌握一個詞嗎？（在討論這個部分時，我們憶起柏拉圖〈游敘弗倫篇〉裡蘇格拉底指責游敘弗倫對「虔敬」的解釋只是舉例——對蘇格拉底來說，那不是真的「知道」何為「虔敬」。）
當我們掌握一個詞的使用時——我們不是就已經掌握了這個詞的意義了嗎？
回頭去看Marriam-Webster Dictionary中對Camp的定義：
Definition of camp
1a: something so outrageously artificial, affected, inappropriate, or out-of-date as to be considered amusing
This version of the play is camp: outrageous in concept and wild in its execution with double entendres flying every which way.
1b: a style or mode of personal or creative expression that is absurdly exaggerated and often fuses elements of high and popular culture
a movie that celebrates camp
2: exaggerated effeminate mannerisms (as of speech or gesture)
這樣的定義是否有比“Notes on ‘Camp’”說明得更好？若不給出Camp的例子，一個人是否可以在讀完這串定義後，正確無誤的指出哪些作品跟行為可被冠以敢曝之名？（又，是先出現人們對Camp一字的使用，還是先有定義？）
最後的最後——無論Marriam-Webster Dictionary或Sontag，都對Camp一詞在同志運動及酷兒論述中的重要意義跟使用沒有太大著墨。這一點是否又可以在「字詞的意義」此一題目上，給出什麼思考的方向？
-Disclaimer: 這是一篇不怎麼嚴謹的雜談，僅僅記錄在《哲學研究》這趟漫長探索中，某條支道上我驚鴻一瞥的風景。這是否是維根斯坦想說的？我也不太確定。只是我在交叉閱讀中，腦子processing的軌跡。
-Bibliography
Sontag, Susan. “Notes on Camp.” 1963.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by Anscombe G E M., Blackwell, 1968.
