Reconsidering Some Passages in Wittgenstein

1971 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Frank B. Ebersole

I want to consider some difficulties which I have on rereading the passages on “common properties” or “common features” and “family resemblances” in The Blue Book (p. 17) and in Philosophical Investigations (§65 - §71 ). These passages are not as easy to read as they once were. Wittgenstein tells us that we think, or have a tendency to think, that all the things to which we apply a general word have some property or feature in common, and he tells us that we believe it is because of this common property or feature that we apply the same word to them. In The Blue Book the phrase is “common property”; in Philosophical Investigations it is “common feature.” Wittgenstein may have changed from the word “property” to the word “feature” because the word “property” is obviously too limited in its application. We speak of the properties of mercury or neoprene but not of the properties of barnowls or slatterns. The word “feature” also seems too limited in a way, but he may have chosen this word mainly because it fits his metaphor of family resemblances. I do not think that Wittgenstein wants to impose any special restriction at this point, so I shall use the word “feature” only where it is appropriate, and I shall use the less limiting word “characteristic” where it seems more appropriate than the word “feature.” Thus I assume that Wittgenstein means to examine our tendency to think that a general word is applied to things because those things have some features or features, characteristic or characteristics in common.

Philosophy ◽  
1967 ◽  
Vol 42 (161) ◽  
pp. 210-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Manser

In his Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein introduces the notion of a ‘family resemblance’ to deal with certain problems. Talking of games and what they seem to have in common, he points out that there are no common features (or no common feature) in virtue of which we call all games ‘games’. Instead there are, he claims, many different similarities and relationships; he says ‘we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail’. (§ 66.) He then goes on to add: ‘I can think of no better expression to characterise these similarities than “family resemblances”; for the various resemblances between members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait, temperament, etc. etc. overlap and criss-cross in the same way,—And I shall say: “games form a family”.’ (§ 67.) Wittgenstein also instances numbers as forming a ‘family’ in the same manner. This notion of a ‘family resemblance’ has come to be used by many philosophers to deal with a range of situations where there appears to be a difficulty in finding a single definite common property and yet there exists a desire to call some set of things by the same name. I myself have succumbed to this temptation. Perhaps the widest claim for the use of this device is that made by Mr Bambrough in an article entitled ‘Universals and Family Resemblances’ (Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1960–61, pp. 207–222). This begins with the words ‘I believe that Wittgenstein solved what is known as “the problem of universals”’.


1974 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 635-651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Griffin

Wittgenstein expounds his notion of a family resemblance in two important passages. The first is from The Blue Book:This craving for generality is the resultant of a number of tendencies connected with particular philosophical confusions. There is—(a) The tendency to look for something common to entities which we commonly subsume under a general term. We are inclined to think that there must be something common to all games, say, and that this common property is the justification for applying the general term “game” to the various games; whereas the games form a family the members of which have family likenesses ….(b) There is a tendency rooted in our usual forms of expression, to think that a man who has learnt to understand a general term, say, the term “leaf,” has thereby come to possess a kind of general picture of a leaf, as opposed to pictures of particular leaves …. This again is connected with the idea that the meaning of a word is an image, or a thing correlated with the word.


Author(s):  
Vanda Božičević

After stressing the importance of the notion of similarity for the theories of meaning, the author discusses the definition of similarity as 'feature matching' and proves it inadequate, offering another operational definition of similarity derived from late Wittgenstein’s idea of 'family resemblances'. Similarity is understood as a 'perceived' pattern of relation correspondences that precedes the abstraction of common features and cannot be reduced to it.


2001 ◽  
Vol 01 (02) ◽  
pp. R131-R149 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARIA K. KOLEVA ◽  
VALÉRY C. COVACHEV

The major goal of the present paper is to find out the manifestation of the boundedness of fluctuations. Two different subjects are considered: (i) an ergodic Markovian process associated with a new type of large scale fluctuations at spatially homogeneous reaction systems; (ii) simulated dynamical systems that possess strange attractors. Their common property is that the fluctuations are bounded. It is found out that the mathematical description of the stochasticity at both types of systems is identical. Then, it is to be expected that it exhibits certain common features whose onset is the stochasticity, namely: (i) The power spectrum of a time series of length T comprises a striclty decreasing band that uniformly fits the shape 1/fα(f) where [Formula: see text] and α(f) strictly increases to the value α(∞) = p(p > 2) as f. approaches infinity. Practically, at low frequencies this shape is 1/f-like with high accuracy because the deviations of the non-constant exponent α(f) from 1 are very small and become even smaller as the frequency tends to 1/T. The greatest advantage of the shape 1/fα(f) is that it ensures a finite variance of fluctuations. (ii) It is found out that the structure of a physical and a strange attractor is identical and they are non-homogeneous. (iii) The Kolmogorov entropy is finite.


1973 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 133-148
Author(s):  
Jenny Teichman

The last part of Wittgenstein's Blue Book consists of a discussion of Solipsism. In the course of that discussion there occur several remarks (extending over about a page-and-a-half) which are explicitly concerned with the concept of a person and with the criteria of personal identity. This section is replaced in the Philosophical Investigations by half a sentence which reads: ‘… there is a great variety of criteria for personal “identity”’. Wittgenstein has italicised the word ‘identity’, and has placed it in inverted commas: I don't quite know why he does this, but it might be a hint to the effect that there is something slightly suspect about the notion of personal identity.


1973 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 133-148
Author(s):  
Jenny Teichman

The last part of Wittgenstein's Blue Book consists of a discussion of Solipsism. In the course of that discussion there occur several remarks (extending over about a page-and-a-half) which are explicitly concerned with the concept of a person and with the criteria of personal identity. This section is replaced in the Philosophical Investigations by half a sentence which reads: ‘… there is a great variety of criteria for personal “identity”’. Wittgenstein has italicised the word ‘identity’, and has placed it in inverted commas: I don't quite know why he does this, but it might be a hint to the effect that there is something slightly suspect about the notion of personal identity.


Author(s):  
Ezzatollah Keyhani

Acetylcholinesterase (EC 3.1.1.7) (ACHE) has been localized at cholinergic junctions both in the central nervous system and at the periphery and it functions in neurotransmission. ACHE was also found in other tissues without involvement in neurotransmission, but exhibiting the common property of transporting water and ions. This communication describes intracellular ACHE in mammalian bone marrow and its secretion into the extracellular medium.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pardan Syafrudin

The Common properties (community property) is an asset that the husband and wife acquired during the household lifes, which both of them is agree that after united through marriage bonds, that the property produced by one or both of them will be common property. It shows, that if there's an agreement between husband and wife before marriage (did not to unify their property), then the property produced both will not become a joint treasure. Thus, if a husband or wife dies, or divorces, then the property owned by both of them can be distributed in accordance with their respective shares, another case when the two couples are not making an agreement, then the property gained during marriage bonds can be divided into types of communal property. In Islamic law, this kind of treasure is not contained in the Qur'an or Sunnah. Nor in Islamic jurisprudence. However, Islamic law legalizes the existence of common property as long as it is applicable in a society and the benefit in the distribution of such property. In contrast to the positive law, this property types have been regulated and described in the Marriage Law, as well as the Islamic Law Compilations, which became the legal restriction in the affairs of marriage in force in Indonesia. In this study, the author tries to compile the existence of common property according to the Islamic law reviews and positive law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document