• TheMadFool
    13.8k
    This is a spin-off from another thread starring Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 - 1951), an imposing figure in modern philosophy if only because he claimed that philosophical problems were pesudoproblems generated by miscomprehension of language.

    To begin with, I must confess my poor understanding of his concept of language games and his belief that meaning is use is still unclear to me. That being said, I have a relatively better grasp of what Wittgenstein means by family resemblance with regard to words and his rope analogy, which some forum members were kind enough to remind me, seems not too complicated for the likes of me.

    I'll start off with what I claimed I know (Wittgenstein's family resemblance and rope analogy) and build up my case against Wittgenstein's ultimate claim that referential meaning is flawed or even wrong and refute the obvious conclusion that follows from his views viz. that there are no philosophical problems.

    Family resemblance: Let's take Wittgenstein's own example - the word "game". He, or perhaps someone else, asserts that the word "game" has a problem with its definition for it applies to quite a many activities, recreational or professional, but, as Wittgenstein rightly points out, there is no one feature/characteristic that runs through, is common to, all these various activities. Had such common characteristics existed we would've identified the essence of what a game is. A good way to illustrate this is to consider some hypothetical games e.g. games J, K, and L such that

    1. J has features A, B
    2. K has features, B, C
    3. L has features A, C

    Some feature is common to any two games but no feature is common to all games. Thus, J, K, and L constitute the Wittgensteinian family resemblance. The word "game" refers to all three of them but the meaning of the word "game" is determined on the basis of shifting intension - sometimes it's feature A that determines what a game is, other times it's feature B that does that and there are times feature C decides what is a game or not. The bottom line is the absence of an essence - no universally common theme - that unites J, K, and L.

    This is a problem for philosophy because, if I'm correct, philosophers are in the business of finding the essence of a word's meaning - that common thread that runs through all usages of that word - and then philosophizing on that essence and here we have Wittgenstein, telling us that some words, and herein lies the rub, including philosophically important words, may lack such an essence. No essence to a word and the word becomes a slippery customer for we can't get a fix on its meaning. How does one philisophize about a word whose meaning we haven't yet figured out? It may not be impossible but disagreements wil be the rule rather than the exception.

    That said, let's return to the games J, K and L but before that a remark on what a definition is: a definition basically lists both the sufficent and necessary features of things the word refers to.

    1. J has features A, B
    2. K has features B, C
    3. L has features A, C

    When we conclude that J and K are games, we're, in fact, making two claims: the feature B is sufficient to infer both J and K are games AND that the feature B is also necessary for the same. The first claim is a no-brainer; the second claim is somewhat harder to notice (for me) but suffice it to say that without the feature B, there's no family resemblance and so the one (either J or K) lacking the feature B would NOT be a game . The same logic applies to all other combinations, (J & K), (J & L) (K & L), the two claims about sufficient and necessary applying to the features B, A, and C, respectively.

    This implies A + B + C, being all sufficient and necessary features for something to be a game, is the definition of "game". How then is J or K or L a game? After all each one of them seems to lack a feature (J lacks feature C, K lacks feature A and L lacks feature B) and we just said a game is when A + B + C are present. This is best explicable as a misuse of the word "game": all people aren't philosophers or logicians and the rules of both philosophy and logic are relaxed in ordinary conversation and this has the net effect of words being misused in the sense that definitions are only applied in bits and pieces. For instance, when "game" actually means features A + B + C altogether, people willingly, although erroneously, accept things that possess only a part of A + B + C as games. This is the reason why we have what Wittgenstein calls family resemblance.

    It then becomes clear that seeking an essence - the feature in common - in games J, K, and L would require for the word "game" (A + B + C) to have been applied correctly and were this so, the essence would jump out at us as A + B + C.

    However, the word "game" is actually misused and erroneously applied to J, K and L - only some, not all, features are taken into consideration and this then became the basis of calling J, K, and L games. This automatically makes searching for an essence in these instances where the word "game" has been misapplied, a wild goose chase - bound to end in failure.

    Thus, it follows that Wittgenstein makes a mistake by supposing J, K, and L are actually games (that the word "game" applies to them) when they are not and this leads him to the erroneous conclusion that meaning is use and not referential.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Accidentally pressed the post button. Please wait for me to complete my OP before replying/commenting
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    The OP is now "complete" though it didn't come out as I'd hoped. Comments...
  • Luke
    2.6k

    Family resemblance...argues that things which could be thought to be connected by one essential common feature may in fact be connected by a series of overlapping similarities, where no one feature is common to all of the things. — Wikipedia article

    It therefore rejects the idea that games must have necessary and sufficient features.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    It therefore rejects the idea that games must have necessary and sufficient features.Luke

    Did you read the later paragraphs? I'm not saying you didn't but I went into, what seemed to me as, quite some detail how those features that determine family resemblance amounts to a comprehensive list of sufficient and necessary features that decides when a word is applicable (or not).
  • Harry Hindu
    5.1k
    It therefore rejects the idea that games must have necessary and sufficient features.Luke
    Which is to say that "games" is a meaningless scribble as it doesn't represent or invoke any necessary and sufficient features other than the scribble itself.
  • Luke
    2.6k
    I went into, what seemed to me as, quite some detail how those features that determine family resemblance amounts to a comprehensive list of sufficient and necessary features that decides when a word is applicable (or not).TheMadFool

    If your list of features was sufficient and necessary then each game (of J, K and L) would have all three features (of A + B + C). But none of them has all three features, as per your example:

    This implies A + B + C, being all sufficient and necessary features for something to be a game, is the definition of "game". How then is J or K or L a game? After all each one of them seems to lack a featureTheMadFool

    To answer your question here: they can all be games precisely because of family resemblance, which rejects that games must be defined in terms of sufficient and necessary features.
  • Luke
    2.6k
    How does one philisophize about a word whose meaning we haven't yet figured out?TheMadFool

    Which words have meanings that "we haven't figured out yet"? You could always refer to a dictionary to find the common meanings/uses of a word.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I explained in my OP that the definition of the word "game", and any other word that behaves like it, consists of all shared features that are responsible for the family resemblance.

    It seems to be that there's something fundamentally wrong about looking for that one or more common thread(s) in the different usages of the word "game"(and other words that exhibit a similar behavior) with an intent to grasp what the word "game" means.

    Why?

    The simple and obviously overlooked reason as far as Wittgenstein is concerned is that the definition of the word "game" is being used piecemeal and not in its entirety, the latter being the correct method of course.

    Take the word "owl". Let's suppose its definition comprises of the following features

    1. It lays eggs
    2. It has wings
    3. It is nocturnal

    Now, if I were to misuse the word "owl" then I would say the chicken (lays eggs + wings) is an owl, the bat (wings + nocturnal) is an owl and the tuatara (lays eggs + nocturnal) is also an owl. As you can see, chickens, bats, and tuataras constitute the family resemblance of the word "owl". However, this situation came to be not because "owl" doesn't have referential meaning for there are owls but because I misused the word "owl".

    Another problem with the family resemblance argument is best revealed with another example. Take the word "good" and the following sentences:

    1. Tom is good because he gives to charity and believes people shouldn't hurt other living things

    2. Dick is good because he believes people shouldn't hurt other living things and believes in god

    3. Harry is good because he gives to charity and believes in god

    Tom's, Dick's, and Harry's goodness become the family resemblance of the word "good"

    There is no common theme detectable in these three people and if Wittgenstein has the say then, good doesn't have a universally applicable meaning - its different for different people and has no fixed referent.

    However, list all of the features present in Tom, Dick and Harry and we get the following definition of "good":

    X. Must give to charity
    Y. Must believe people shouldn't hurt other living things
    Z. Must believe in god

    You don't need to think too hard to realize that the definition of "good" comprises all three features (X, Y, and Z). This clearly shows that, sometimes, the meaning of words is to be found not in some shared common feature that unites the various usages of a word but in combining all features present in the different ways the word is used.
  • jacksonsprat22
    99
    There is no common theme detectable in these three people and if Wittgenstein has the say then, good doesn't have a universally applicable meaning - its different for different people and has no fixed referent.TheMadFool

    Wittgenstein is criticizing platonism, the idea that we cannot understand the good without understanding what all uses have in common. I think Plato had this backwards. We do understand each use of good and do not need to have a universal concept of good.
  • Luke
    2.6k
    As you can see, chickens, bats, and tuataras constitute the family resemblance of the word "owl"TheMadFool

    This is not analogous with the example of games. This analogy implies that non-games all constitute a family resemblance of the word "game". Instead, games are "connected by a series of overlapping similarities where no one feature is common to all". They share enough similar features that we call them all games, but there is no essential feature (and no distinct boundary) of what is (or is not) a game.

    You don't need to think too hard to realize that the definition of "good" comprises all three features (X, Y, and Z). This clearly shows that, sometimes, the meaning of words is to be found not in some shared common feature that unites the various usages of a word but in combining all features present in the different ways the word is used.TheMadFool

    None of these features is essential to the definition of "good" and there are possibly other features as well.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    This is not analogous with the example of games. This analogy implies that non-games all constitute a family resemblance of the word "game". Instead, games are "connected by a series of overlapping similarities where no one feature is common to all". They share enough similar features that we call them all games, but there is no essential feature (and no distinct boundary) of what is (or is not) a game.Luke

    Argumentum ad infinitum or maybe I don't get you. Do you mind elaborating a bit more.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Wittgenstein is criticizing platonism, the idea that we cannot understand the good without understanding what all uses have in common. I think Plato had this backwards. We do understand each use of good and do not need to have a universal concept of good.jacksonsprat22

    But there is such a thing as universal good - consisting of the union set of all things to which the word "good" has been applied to.
  • jacksonsprat22
    99
    But there is such a thing as universal good - consisting of the union set of all things to which the word "good" has been applied to.TheMadFool

    Okay. But that seems abstract. Plato asks what is common about a good shoemaker and good statesman. After we say they perform their tasks well, what knowledge has been added to what we already knew? The problem with universals is not that they are wrong but that they don't convey the knowledge they're supposed to have.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Okay. But that seems abstract. Plato asks what is common about a good shoemaker and good statesman. After we say they perform their tasks well, what knowledge has been added to what we already knew? The problem with universals is not that they are wrong but that they don't convey the knowledge they're supposed to have.jacksonsprat22

    Yes, the issue you raise by saying "but that seems abstract" is one I encountered in my analysis of Wittgenstein's language game theory.

    I run the risk of boring you here but look at the word "game" and suppose it's being used to label the following:

    1. Chess is a game because of features p and q : feature set C ={p, q}
    2. Solitaire is a game because of features q and r : feature set S = {q, r}
    3. Bullfighting is a game because of features p and r : feature set B = {p, r}

    My suggestion is that to find out the actual meaning of "game", we have to carry out the set union operation on C, S and B: (C U S) U B. Now the problem I encountered was that (C U S) U B = {p, q, r} doesn't may not have a real-world referent i.e. there may not be any game that has all features p, q, and r. In other words, the combined features list (p, q, and r) has an imaginary referent.

    However, there's no hard and fast rule saying that referents can't be imaginary. The word "unicorn" has meaning despite its referent being imaginary. Platonic forms do make an appearance, in my study of Wittgenstein's language games as perfect, but not necessarily actualized, specimens of things words denote.
  • Luke
    2.6k
    Do you mind elaborating a bit more.TheMadFool

    Do you mind articulating the essential feature of all games? Maybe I'm misusing the word.
  • jacksonsprat22
    99
    One example of a game is chess. There are rules of chess which can be learned in an hour. But the game is about winning and knowing the rules does little to help you win. Playing chess improves your game. Most good players study grandmaster games to learn how the best play.

    I think Wittgenstein's point is that chess is very complex because of its play and defining piece movements and rules will not tell us what the game is about.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Do you mind articulating the essential feature of all games? Maybe I'm misusing the word.Luke

    That you recognized that misusing words is a possibility says enough.

    To tell you the truth, I don't know what the essential features of games are but here's a hint - gather all the essential features of each activity thought to be a game and put them under the heading "game".

    Chess:
    1. Two players
    2. Rules
    3. Ends with one player winning, the other losing (checkmate) or a draw or a stalemate
    4. Needs a board

    Football:
    5.Two teams
    6. Rules
    7. Ends with one team winning and the other losing or a draw

    Solitaire
    8. One player
    9. Rules
    10. Ends with a win or a loss

    Game:
    1, 2, 3,...,8, 9, 10

    Matters might get a bit complicated as games diversify.
  • Luke
    2.6k
    That you recognized that misusing words is a possibility says enough.TheMadFool

    I'm trying to get you to give up on the idea that games must have an essential feature. Wittgenstein's family resemblance rejects and replaces this idea. I don't really think I'm misusing the word.

    To tell you the truth, I don't know what the essential features of games areTheMadFool

    Then why should I accept that games must have an essential feature? How do you know that you're not misusing the word?
  • Banno
    24.7k
    I explained in my OP that the definition of the word "game", and any other word that behaves like it, consists of all shared features that are responsible for the family resemblance.TheMadFool

    And what you have done is show that this assumption is false, by reaching the contradiction that games J, K and L are not games.
  • Banno
    24.7k
    To tell you the truth, I don't know what the essential features of games are but here's a hint - gather all the essential features of each activity thought to be a game and put them under the heading "game".TheMadFool

    ...and then invent a new game that has none of those features.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I'm trying to get you to give up on the idea that games must have an essential feature. Wittgenstein's family resemblance rejects and replaces this idea. I don't really think I'm misusing the word.Luke

    Then why should I accept that games must have an essential feature? How do you know that you're not misusing the word?Luke

    But games do have essential, defining, features; we're simply failing to notice them and that not least because we're just too lazy to put in the required amount of effort.

    I, like you, don't want to repeat myself; so, you'll have to focus on the arguments I made in my preceding posts.

    ...and then invent a new game that has none of those features.Banno

    Where would the family resemblance anchor itself to then?
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    And what you have done is show that this assumption is false, by reaching the contradiction that games J, K and L are not games.Banno

    If anyone has done a philosophical or logical no-no, then it's those people who've used the word "game" improperly - employing only part of, and not the whole of, the definition.
  • Luke
    2.6k
    But games do have essential, defining, features; we're simply failing to notice them and that not least because we're just too lazy to put in the required amount of effort.TheMadFool

    "We"? I've asked you to produce this/these essential feature(s) and you haven't. Your entire argument hinges on this.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    "We"? I've asked you to produce this/these essential feature(s) and you haven't. Your entire argument hinges on this.Luke

    Indeed it does and I did:

    here's a hint - gather all the essential features of each activity thought to be a game and put them under the heading "game".

    Chess:
    1. Two players
    2. Rules
    3. Ends with one player winning, the other losing (checkmate) or a draw or a stalemate
    4. Needs a board

    Football:
    5.Two teams
    6. Rules
    7. Ends with one team winning and the other losing or a draw

    Solitaire
    8. One player
    9. Rules
    10. Ends with a win or a loss

    Game:
    1, 2, 3,...,8, 9, 10

    Matters might get a bit complicated as games diversify.
    TheMadFool

    Matters might get [more] complicated as games diversify.
  • Luke
    2.6k
    Indeed it does and I did:TheMadFool

    You've listed different "essential" features for each game. Which one is essential to each that makes them all games?
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    You've listed different "essential" features for each game. Which one is essential to each that makes them all games?Luke

    All of them.
  • Luke
    2.6k
    An essential feature of all games is to have both one player and two players?
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    An essential feature of all games is to have both one player and two players?Luke

    A human is a rational animal, a female OR a male.
  • Luke
    2.6k
    Do you understand what an essential feature is? You made a big fuss about sufficient and necessary features in the OP.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.