Talk:Family resemblance

message: As one of the authors of a previous, and inadequate, version of this page, I would like to congratulate the present authors. This is an excellent article. Banno (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done 

message: I'm puzzled by the assertion "Item_1 and item_5 have nothing in common" when manifestly each item has commonality in being letters of the Latin alphabet, in the same typeface and size and weight and colour, all are capital letters, there being four in each, presented in alphabetical order, and being four consecutive letters of the conventional alphabetic ordering. The source document may have been handwritten and all manner of variations could have been selected amongst. NickyMcLean (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A - H stand for distinct features or characteristics of the items rather than the letters themselves. For example, in the case of games, A might be "involves winning and losing", B might be "is played with a ball", C might be "involves gambling" and so on. A 44 will get you 99 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes. I stopped one level of indirection short! Oops. It helps to read the article carefully. NickyMcLean (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal Models

message: I took the liberty and removed the image showing a familiy reunion of some family. As far as I understand, it has nothing to do with the article. Feel free to put it back if I am mistaken. Bleistiftspitzer (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image removed 

message: In the leading section, a footnote reading,
::In translations of Wittgenstein's works, his term, Familienähnlichkeit is variously translated as both "family resemblance" and "family likeness" with, often, both versions appearing in the same English translation.
has been replaced with,
:::The German word is found in Grimms' Dictionary and Wittgenstein used in English either family "likeness" or "resemblance", so both appear in translations.
This amendment is both factually incorrect, and extremely misleading. The facts are these: (1) In his works, Wittgenstein consistently uses the German Familienähnlichkeit. (2) This word/expression is not unique to Wittgenstein. (3) Depending upon your personal preference, ähnlichkeit can be translated as "similarity" (the most normal translation) or "resemblance" or "likeness". (4) Wittgenstein did not write English versions of his works; the "English" works are translations (by another) of his German texts. (5) The point is NOT that some translators have rendered his Familienähnlichkeit as "family resemblance" and others rendered it as "family likeness"; it is, in English, you will find the "to English readers obviously different expressions" of "family resemblance" and "family likeness" without any footnotes or any other assistance to the English reader to inform them that these two, very obviously different terms are in fact being used, within the body of the same book, to denote precisely the same referent.
To express my own view — and, in particular, as a consequence of Wittgenstein's own freely given admission that the origins of his thoughts on Familienähnlichkeit was his viewing of sets of composite photographs made by Francis Galton of the prototypical "face" of particular families — I feel that the only correct way to transmit the meaning intended by Wittgenstein is to create an entirely new term, "familylike-ness", because it is the similarity or dis-simarity to the supposed "familyness" that is being spoken of.
I have altered the footnote accordingly.Lindsay658 (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wittgenstein spent a lot of time lecturing and speaking in English and apparently he has been using both. One has to check the various "lecture notes" to find evidence; in the Blue book it is 'likeness.195.96.229.83 (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Familienähnlichkeit 

message: The lead states that retrospectively the idea can be found earlier, so moved here the following, as it is not really to the point:
 
John Stuart Mill described family resemblances in  Chapter 8 of Book 1 in "A System of Logic" published in 1843.
"But where the resemblances and differences on which our classifications are founded are not of this palpable and easily determinable kind; especially where they consist not in any one quality but in a number of qualities, the effects of which, being blended together, are not very easily discriminated, and referred each to its true source; it often happens that names are applied to nameable objects, with no distinct connotation present to the minds of those who apply them. They are only influenced by a general resemblance between the new object and all or some of the old familiar objects which they have been accustomed to call by that name. This, as we have seen, is the law which even the mind of the philosopher must follow, in giving names to the simple elementary feelings of our nature: but, where the things to be named are complex wholes, a philosopher is not content with noticing a general resemblance; he examines what the resemblance consists in: and he only gives the same name to things which resemble one another in the same definite particulars. The philosopher, therefore, habitually employs his general names with a definite connotation. But language was not made, and can only in some small degree be mended, by philosophers. In the minds of the real arbiters of language, general names, especially where the classes they denote cannot be brought before the tribunal of the outward senses to be identified and discriminated, connote little more than a vague gross resemblance to the things which they were earliest, or have been most, accustomed to call by those names. When, for instance, ordinary persons predicate the words just or unjust of any action, fnoble or meanf of any sentiment, expression, or demeanour, statesman or charlatan of any personage figuring in politics, do they mean to affirm of those various subjects any determinate attributes, of whatever kind? No: they merely recognise, as they think, some likeness, more or less vague and loose, between gtheseg and some other things which they have been accustomed to denominate or to hear denominated by those appellations."91.92.179.172 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mill on ressemblance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Family resemblance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528100436/http://www.missouristate.edu/assets/phi/Family_Resemblances_Relationalism_and_the_Meaning_of_Art.pdf to http://www.missouristate.edu/assets/phi/Family_Resemblances_Relationalism_and_the_Meaning_of_Art.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528100436/http://www.missouristate.edu/assets/phi/Family_Resemblances_Relationalism_and_the_Meaning_of_Art.pdf to http://www.missouristate.edu/assets/phi/Family_Resemblances_Relationalism_and_the_Meaning_of_Art.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002100127/http://www.sbg.ac.at/kriterion/documents/18/18prien.pdf to http://www.sbg.ac.at/kriterion/documents/18/18prien.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified