Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The term "Family resemblance" as feature of Wittgenstein's philosophy owes much to its translation in English. Wittgenstein, who wrote mostly in German, used the compound word Familienähnlichkeit, but as he lectured and conversed in English he used 'family likeness' (e.g. The Blue Book, p. 17,33; The Brown Book,§66).
The term family resemblance refers to Ludwig Wittgenstein's idea that certain concepts cannot be defined in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions which refer to essential features shared by all examples. [39] [40] Instead, the use of one concept for all its cases is justified by resemblance relations based on their
Resemblance may refer to: Similarity (philosophy), or resemblance, a relation between objects that constitutes how much these objects are alike; Family resemblance (anthropology), physical similarities shared between close relatives; Family resemblance, a philosophical idea made popular by Ludwig Wittgenstein
To remember the order of taxa in biology (Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, [Variety]): " D ear K ing P hilip C ame O ver F or G ood S oup" is often cited as a non-vulgar method for teaching students to memorize the taxonomic classification of system.
A selfie of American senator Chris Coons (left) and German chancellor Olaf Scholz, who have been noted to resemble each other [1]. A look-alike, or double, is a person who bears a strong physical resemblance to another person, excluding cases like twins and other instances of family resemblance.
As a writer, I value grammar, spelling, syntax, diction—all that jazz. But as a millennial, I’m programmed to understand that if I use a gratuitous apostrophe within a possessive “its,” I ...
Family resemblance is also shaped by environmental factors, temperature, light, nutrition, exposure to drugs, the time that different family members spend in shared and non-shared environments, are examples of factors found to influence phenotype.
We can justify our use of the new name T by making the ostensive definition more or less explicit. But this is not the case with S. Recall that because S is part of a private language, it is not possible to provide an explicit definition of S. The only possible definition is the private, ostensive one of associating S with that feeling.