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. — 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.It therefore rejects the idea that games must have necessary and sufficient features. — Luke
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
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 — TheMadFool
How does one philisophize about a word whose meaning we haven't yet figured out? — TheMadFool
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
As you can see, chickens, bats, and tuataras constitute the family resemblance of the word "owl" — TheMadFool
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
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
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. — 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. — jacksonsprat22
Do you mind elaborating a bit more. — TheMadFool
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. — TheMadFool
To tell you the truth, I don't know what the essential features of games are — TheMadFool
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
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
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
...and then invent a new game that has none of those features. — Banno
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
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. — Luke
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
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? — Luke
An essential feature of all games is to have both one player and two players? — Luke
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.