Which of the Following Fit With Audi's "Family Resemblance" Definition of Religion?

Part of a series on
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Early Philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein
Picture theory of language Truth tables· Truth conditions Truth functions· States of affairs Logical necessity
Subsequently Philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein
Meaning is use· Language-games Private linguistic communication argument Family resemblance· Ideal language analysis· Dominion following Forms of life· Grammar Anti-skepticism Wittgenstein'southward philosophy of mathematics
Movements
Analytic philosophy· Linguistic plough Platonic language philosophy Logical atomism· Logical positivism Ordinary linguistic communication philosophy Wittgensteinian fideism· Quietism
Works
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Some Remarks on Logical Form Blue and Brown Books· Philosophical Remarks Philosophical Investigations On Certainty· Culture and Value Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics Zettel· Remarks on Color Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Conventionalities
People
Bertrand Russell· G.Due east. Moore John Maynard Keynes· Paul Engelmann Friedrich Waismann· Moritz Schlick Rudolf Carnap· Francis Skinner Frank Ramsey· Vienna Circle 1000.E.Yard. Anscombe· Norman Malcolm Rush Rhees· Peter Winch Peter Geach· One thousand.H. von Wright
Interpreters
Barry Stroud· Cora Diamond Peter Hacker· Terry Eagleton Stephen Toulmin· Saul Kripke Anthony Kenny· Crispin Wright Warren Goldfarb· James F. Conant Gordon Baker· Stanley Cavell D.Z. Phillips· Colin McGinn Jaakko Hintikka· Oswald Hanfling A.C. Grayling· Rupert Read
Other
Apostles· Moral Sciences Guild Stonborough House

Family unit resemblance (German language: Familienähnlichkeit ) is a philosophical idea fabricated popular by Ludwig Wittgenstein, with the all-time known exposition beingness given in the posthumously published book Philosophical Investigations (1953) ^[1] Information technology has been suggested that Wittgenstein picked the idea and the term from Nietzsche, who had been using it, equally many nineteenth century philologists, when discoursing about language families. ^[2] Wittgenstein's point was that things which may be thought to be connected by one essential common feature may in fact exist connected past a series of overlapping similarities, where no one feature is common to all. Games, which Wittgenstein used to explain the notion, have become the paradigmatic example of a group that is related by family resemblances.

The beginning occurrence of the term "Family resemblance" is found in a note from 1930, commenting on Spengler'due south ideas. ^[iii] The notion itself features widely in Wittgenstein's afterwards work, and in the Investigations information technology is introduced in response to questions nearly the general form of propositions and the essence of language – questions which were fundamental to Wittgenstein throughout his philosophical career. This suggests that family resemblance was of prime number importance for Wittgenstein's later philosophy; even so, like many of his ideas, it is hard to observe precise agreement within the secondary literature on either its place within Wittgenstein's later thought or on its wider philosophical significance.

Since the publication of the Investigations the notion of family unit resemblance has been discussed extensively not only in the philosophical literature, but as well, for example, in works dealing with nomenclature where the approach is described as 'polythetic', distinguishing information technology from the traditional approach known at present as 'monothetic'. Prototype theory is a recent development in cognitive science where this thought has as well been explored. Every bit the thought gains popularity, earlier instances of its occurrence are rediscovered due east.grand. in 18th century taxonomy, ^[4] in the writings of Vygotsky ^[5] or Tatarkiewicz. ^[6]

Philosophical context

The local context where the topic of family resemblances appears is Wittgenstein's critique of language. In Philosophical Investigations §65-71 the plurality of language uses is compared to the plurality of games. Next it is asserted that games have common features but no one characteristic is constitute in all of them. The whole argument has go famous under the heading 'language games'.

The larger context in which Wittgenstein's philosophy is seen to develop considers his uncompromising opposition to essences, mental entities and other forms of idealism which were accepted equally a matter of fact in continental philosophy at the turn of the preceding century. In his view the main cause for such errors is language and its uncritical use. In the received view concepts, categories or classes are taken to rely on necessary features common to all items covered by them. Abstraction is the process which acknowledges this necessity and derives essences but in the absenteeism of a single common feature it is bound to neglect.

Terminology

The term "Family resemblance" equally feature of Wittgenstein's philosophy owes much to its translation in English. Wittgenstein, who wrote mostly in High german, used the compound word 'Familienähnkichkeit' but as he lectured and conversed in English language he used 'family likeness' (due east.one thousand. The Bluish Book, p. 17,33; The Chocolate-brown Book,§66). Notwithstanding in the Philosophical Investigations the carve up word 'ähnlichkeit' has been translated as 'similarity' (§§11,130,185,444) and on ii occasions (§§nine,90) it is given every bit 'like'. The German family-word is common and information technology is found in Grimm'south dictionary; a rare occurrence of 'family likeness' has been noted in a lecture by J. F. Moulton in 1877. ^[7]

Examples and quotes

Games are the main instance considered by Wittgenstein in his text where he also mentions numbers and makes an analogy with a thread. He develops his argument further past insisting that in such cases there is non a clear cutting boundary only there arises some ambivalence if this indefiniteness can be separated from the main point.

In §66 Wittgenstein invites united states to

consider for example the proceedings that we telephone call "games"...[to] wait and come across whether at that place is anything common to all.

The section mentions carte games, lath games, ball games, games similar ring-a-band-a-roses and concludes:

And we can go through the many, many other groups of games in the same way; nosotros can meet how similarities crop up and disappear.

And the result of this examination is: nosotros see a complicated network of

similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities.

The following §67 begins by stating:

I tin think of no meliorate expression to characterize these similarities than "family resemblances"; for the various resemblances betwixt members of a family unit: build, features, colour of optics, gait, temperament, etc. etc. overlap and criss-cross in the same way. – And I shall say: "games" form a family.

and extends the analogy

for case the kinds of number class a family in the aforementioned manner. Why do we phone call something a "number"? Well, perhaps because it has a direct relationship with several things that accept hitherto been chosen number; and this tin be said to give it an indirect relationship to other things we call the aforementioned proper name. And we extend our concept of number as in spinning a thread we twist fibre on fibre. And the strength of the thread does non reside in the fact that some one fibre runs through its whole length, but in the overlapping of many fibres.

The problem of boundaries begins in §68

I tin requite the concept 'number' rigid limits ... that is, use the word "number" for a rigidly limited concept, merely I can also use it so that the extension of the concept is not closed past a borderland. And this is how we practise use the give-and-take "game". For how is the concept of a game bounded? What nevertheless counts as a game and what no longer does? Can you give the boundary? No. Yous tin draw ane; for none has and then far been fatigued. (But that never troubled you before when you used the give-and-take "game".)

Formal models

There are some simple models ^{[5] [8]} which tin exist derived from the text of §66-nine. The near elementary one, which fits Wittgenstein's exposition, seems to be the sorites type. Information technology consists in a collection of items Item_1, Item_2, Item_3... described by features A, B, C, D, ...:

Item_1: A B C D
Item_2: B C D E
Item_3: C D E F
Item_4: D Due east F G
Item_5: Due east F Yard H
......... . . . .

In this instance, which presents an indefinitely extended ordered family, resemblance is seen in shared features: each particular shares three features with his neighbors due east.m. Item_2 is like Item_1 in respects B, C, D, and like Item_3 in respects C, D, E. Apparently what nosotros call 'resemblance' involves different aspects in each particular instance. It is as well seen to be of a different 'degree' and here it fades with 'distance': Item_1 and Item_5 accept nada in mutual.

Another simple model is described as:

Item_1: A B C
Item_2: B C D
Item_3: A C D
Item_4: A B D
Information technology exhibits the presence of a constant degree of resemblance and the absence of a common feature without extending to infinity.

Wittgenstein rejects the disjunction of features or 'properties', i.e. the prepare {A,B,C,D,..}, as something shared by all items. He admits that a 'sharing' is common to all just deems that it is simply verbal:

if someone wished to say: "In that location is something mutual to all these constructions – namely the disjunction of all their common backdrop" – I should reply: Now you lot are merely playing with words. One might likewise say: "Something runs through the whole thread – namely the continuous overlapping of those fibres".

Notable applications

• Morris Weitz first applied family resemblances in an attempt to draw fine art ^[9] which opened a even so continuing contend. ^[10]

• Renford Bambrough proposed that 'Wittgenstein solved what is known as "the problem of universals"' and said of his solution (as Hume said of Berkeley's treatment of the same topic), that it is "one of the greatest and nigh valuable discoveries that has been made of late years in the republic of letters". ^[11] His view provided the occasion for numerous farther comments. ^[12]
• Rodney Needham explored family unit resemblances in connection with the problem of brotherhood and noted their presence in taxonomy where they are known as a polythetic nomenclature ^[5]

• Eleanor Rosch used family resemblances in her cognitivist studies ^[13] Other cognitive research ^[14] has shown that children and fifty-fifty rhesus monkeys tend to use family resemblance relationships rather than explicit rules ^[xv] when learning categories.

Criticism and comments

Philosophical Investigations is the primary text used in discussing family unit resemblances fifty-fifty though the topic appears too in other Wittgenstein's works, notably The Brown Volume. ^[16] Well-nigh contributions to the word are by people involved in philosophical research, but business organization with more than pragmatic questions such equally taxonomy ^[4] or information processing ^[17] sometimes motivates the comments. Hans Sluga has observed that "the notion of family resemblance... draws on two quite different sets of ideas, two different vocabularies, just treats them equally if they were ane and the same. The showtime is the vocabulary of kinship, of descent, of some sort of existent and causal connection.. the second is that of similarity, resemblance, affinity and correspondence." ^[18]

The main focus for criticism is the notion of similarity which is instrumental for family unit resemblance. A similarity is ever found for two arbitrarily selected objects, or a series of intermediaries can link them into a family unit. This problem has been known as underdeterminacy or open ended texture. Admittedly infinity is just potential simply for any finite family some mutual element tin exist pointed out, especially if relational properties are taken into consideration. Wittgenstein'southward insistence that boundaries practice non actually exist but can be traced arbitrarily has been described equally conventionalism and more than more often than not the acceptance of his conception has been seen to nowadays a refined nominalism.

Run across besides

• Prototype theory
• Polythetic term

Notes

1. ^ Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953/2001). Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-23127-vii.
2. ^ Sluga H., Family Resemlance, Grazer Philosophische Studien 71 (2006) 1; see also A Wittgenstein Dictionary, ed. H.-J. Glock, London:Blackwell 1996
3. ^ Wittgenstein L.,(1998) Culture and Value, London:Blackwell, p fourteen. Spengler'southward influence in this and other forms has been considered in papers published after this collection of notes became bachelor, see eastward.m. DeAngelis W., "Wittgenstein and Spengler," Dialogue 33 (1994):41–61
4. ^ ^{a b} Winsor Grand., 2003, Not-essentialist methods in pre-Darwinian taxonomy, Biology and Philosophy 18 (2003) 387–400
5. ^ ^{a b c} Needham R., 1975, Polythetic classification: Convergence and consequences, Homo 10 (1975) 349
6. ^ Tatarkiewicz West., Postawa estetyczna, literacka i poetycka (1933) where it is called 'domino resemblance'.
7. ^ see Griffin, N.: 1974, Wittgenstein, Universals and Family Resemblance, Canadian Journal of Philosophy Iii,635–651
8. ^ Andersen H.,:2000, Kuhn's business relationship of family unit resemblance, Erkenntnis 52: 313–337
9. ^ Weitz M., The Role of Theory in Aesthetics, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62 (1953): 27.
10. ^ Kaufman D., Family resemblances Relationism and the pregnant of "fine art", British Journal of Aesthetics, vol. 47, No. iii, July 2007 doi:10.1093/aesthj/aym008 [1]
11. ^ Bambrough, R.: 1961, Universals and Family unit Resemblance, Proc. Aris. Soc. 61, 207–22
12. ^ a contempo summary in Blair D. (2006), Wittgenstein, Linguistic communication and Data, p.118 (annotation 117); come across besides Dilman, I.: Universals: Bambrough on Wittgenstein, Aris. Soc. Proc., 79 (1978): 35–58; reprinted in John V. Canfi ed., The Philosophy of Wittgenstein, Vol. five, Method and Essence, pp. 305–328. New York: Garland Publishing, 1986.
13. ^ Rosch E. and Mervis, C. (1975) Family unit resemblances: studies in the internal construction of categories, Cognitive Psychology 7, 573-605;
    Rosch, Eastward. (1987), Wittgenstein and categorization research in cognitive psychology, in M. Chapman & R. Dixon (Eds.), Significant and the growth of understanding. Wittgenstein'southward significance for developmental Psychology, Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum.
14. ^ Couchman, Justin J.; Coutinho, M. V. C., & Smith, J. D. (2010). "Rules and Resemblance: Their Changing Residue in the Category Learning of Humans (Human sapiens) and Monkeys (Macaca mulatta)". Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 36 (2): 172–183. doi:10.1037/a0016748. PMC 2890302. PMID 20384398. http://world wide web.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6X05-4YWY29N-2&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2010&_rdoc=ane&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1617178920&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=x&md5=dc525b53ba2ef0b0c25e59cbcdb71db9&searchtype=a.
15. ^ The connection between rule following and applying or extending a concept has been noted early in the word of family unit resemblances, see e.g. Pompa L., 'Family resemblance: a answer', The Philosophical Quarterly, 18 (1968) 347
16. ^ Wittgenstein L., The Blueish and Brown Books, London: Blackwell (1958);I 68, 17, 73
17. ^ Blair D., Wittgenstein, Language and Data, Berlin:Springer, 2006, ISBN 978-1-4020-4112-nine
18. ^ Sluga H., Family Resemlance, Grazer Philosophische Studien 71 (2006) fourteen

References

• Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953/2001). Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-23127-7.

• Andersen H.,: 2000, Kuhn'south account of family resemblance, Erkenntnis 52: 313–337
• Bambrough, R.: 1961, Universals and Family Resemblance, Proc. Arist. Soc. 61, 207–22
• Beardsmore, R. W.: 1992, The Theory of Family Resemblance, Philosophical Investigations fifteen, 131–146
• Bellaimey, J. E.: 1990, Family unit Resemblances and the Problem of the Under-Conclusion of Extension, Philosophical Investigations 13, 31–43.
• Ginzburg C.,: 2004, Family unit Resemblances and Family Copse: Two Cognitive Metaphors, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Spring 2004), pp. 537-556
• Griffin, Northward.: 1974, Wittgenstein, Universals and Family unit Resemblance, Canadian Journal of Philosophy Three, 635–651.
• Gupta, R. K.: 1970, Wittgenstein'south Theory of "Family Resemblance", in his Philosophical Investigations (Secs. 65–80), Philosophia Naturalis 12, 282–286
• Huff D.:(1981), Family unit Resemblances and dominion governed behavior, Philosophical Investigations four (3) 1–23
• Kaufman D.: 2007, Family unit resemblances Relationism and the meaning of "fine art", British Periodical of Aesthetics, vol. 47, No. three, July 2007, doi:10.1093/aesthj/aym008
• Prien B.: Family Resemblances-A Thesis about the Modify of Significant over Time, Kriterion 18 (2004), pp. fifteen–24.
• Raatzsch R., Philosophical Investigations 65ff. :On Family Resemblance, in Essays on Wittgenstein by P. Philipp and R. Raatzsch, Working papers from the Wittgenstein Athenaeum at the University of Bergen #vi (1993), pp. l–76
• Wennerberg, H.: 1967, The Concept of Family Resemblance in Wittgenstein'south After Philosophy, Theoria 33, 107–132.

External links

• Lois Shawver's comments on Philosophical Investigations §65-9 [2]

madisoncamse1956.blogspot.com

Source: http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Family%20resemblance/en-en/

Share this post