PHIL 415 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Family Resemblance, On Certainty
12 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
March 12th/2018
Wittgenstein
65-68
- Family resemblance
- Thought his work would result in new terminology
- Types of definition:
o Essence: set of necessary and sufficient conditions: captures all and only what you want
to capture.
this kind of definition is hard to give outside math/logic
o give a cluster of properties that something needs to have most of in order to meet a
definition
o family resemblance
- Family resemblance: Phenomena that count as language have no single thing in common
that make them count as language, but all share certain affinities
o Languages have no set of necessary and sufficient conditions
o Lack of sharp boundaries
In same way we cant clearly define games (not that it is never possible, but language and
games cannot be defined in this way. This isn’t a problem)
o what makes something language rather than non-language, what is common to all these
activities?
o W claimed this wasn’t a definition, but can be called one
- Ex: kinds of numbers (natural, negative, integers, rational, etc)
o By virtue of what are all of these numbers? W would say there may be no common
characteristics they all share
o W would say we dont need a general definition of numbers
o W claim relates to rule following
- W claims that language expands organically, is no essence that can be captured
- Is it possible to draw a boundary around the concept to define it?
o P 69 – how to describe games? Maybe once we understand a good # of games but still
cant tell what defines them – this isn’t a bad thing
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
o The boundaries are not pre-existing, but we can define things using boundaries
Ex: legal boundaries require a sharp boundary, even if it is drawn arbitrarily
Just bc we draw boundary somewhere doesn’t mean it is a true distinction. But this
doesn’t mean it is irrelevant
- Problem of vagueness – we draw boundaries that seem arbitrary but they are still relevant
(ex: you need to be 18 to be age of majority)
- Doesn’t insist that things must be a certain way – look at the way things are in practice. It
isn’t the case that they must be so
- We can draw boundaries for certain purposes
- The way we define boundaries and how precise it is/isn’t depends on the purpose it is for
- Speaking approximately is important for human life (70-71)
o Being too precise isn’t how human communication works – need vagueness bc life
requires some flexibility
- Language provides whatever life requires; have to understand language in the stream of
life
- 88 – ex of how we have no single idea of what is meant by exact
Sec 75
- There is vagueness and no sharp boundaries – so how do we know what a concept
means?
- What does it mean to know what a concept means but not able to say it (ex: time, games,
language)?
- There is an ambiguity in what it is to “know” something
- It is possible to know something but not be able to define it
o Is this just a matter of not being able to put the words together? Not the case
- W questions why we think we need a definition of something in order to know what it is?
- Ex: game: other than giving examples of games and using it in a sentence how else can
we define what a game is?
- Ex: we know what a clarinet sounds like, but can’t say it. Is a case of not being able to
articulate it
- Likely knowing a meaning is like describing what a clarinet sounds like
Sec 79
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Thought his work would result in new terminology. Family resemblance: phenomena that count as language have no single thing in common that make them count as language, but all share certain affinities. Languages have no set of necessary and sufficient conditions. In same way we cant clearly define games (not that it is never possible, but language and games cannot be defined in this way. W claimed this wasn"t a definition, but can be called one. Ex: kinds of numbers (natural, negative, integers, rational, etc) W would say there may be no common characteristics they all share. W would say we dont need a general definition of numbers. W claims that language expands organically, is no essence that can be captured. Maybe once we understand a good # of games but still cant tell what defines them this isn"t a bad thing. The boundaries are not pre-existing, but we can define things using boundaries.
