Post on 20-Feb-2017
‘Family Resemblance’ in Aristotle’s Philosophical Method
By: James Shortly
Starting Point
“Here, as in the other cases (ton allon), we must set down the phainomena and begin by considering the difficulties, and so go on to vindicate if possible all the endoxa about these states of mind, or at any rate most of
them and the most important” (ENVII 1, 1145b2-6)
Key Terms Used in this Section
• 1. Ton Allon: Can be translated as ‘other cases’, ‘the other cases’, or ‘all other cases’
• 2. Phainomena: Can be translated as ‘appearances’, which can refer to sense appearances, or our beliefs (i.e. how the world ‘appears’ to us, as revealed by our lingusitic practices). Also sometimes translated as ‘observed facts’
• 3. Endoxa: Can be translated as ‘reputable opinion’, ‘of high repute’, ‘generally admitted’, or ‘common conceptions’
Additional Section of Importance
“The temperate man all men call continent and disposed to endurance, while the continent man some maintain to be
always temperate but others do not; and some call the self-indulgent man incontinent and the incontinent man self-indulgent indiscriminately, while others distinguish them. The man of practical wisdom, they sometimes say, cannot be incontinent, while sometimes they say that some who are practically wise and clever are incontinent. Again men are said to be incontinent with respect to anger, honour,
and gain. –These, then, are the things said” (ENVII 1, 1145b14-20)
‘Endoxic Method’ Interpretation
• G. E. L. Owen• He argues that in this section, Aristotle
equivocates ‘sense appearances’ with ‘linguistic appearances’ in his use of the term ‘phainomena’
Continued..
• Martha Nussbaum• Expands on Owen’s account by arguing that,
instead of two different philosophical methods, Aristotle ultimately only has one methodological commitment to ‘preserve appearances’ when attempting to do philosophical analysis of a subject
Advantages of an ‘Endoxic’ Interpretation
• Does justice to what Aristotle explicitly says in 7.1, as there he certainly is gesturing towards some kind of methodological commitment (regardless as to the scope of said commitment)
• Makes sense of the passage immediately after 7.1• Makes sense of why Aristotle seems to give
epistemic currency to ‘what is commonly reported’
Problems with the ‘Endoxic Method’ Interpretation
• Dorothea Frede• Generally agrees with the claim that Aristotle gives
explanatory weight to “what people generally think or say” when conducting philosophical analysis
• However, she is hesitant to describe his overall methodology as ‘endoxic’
• Argues that the kind of methodology Aristotle appears to follow in 7.1 is to be treated as an exception to his overall methodological commitments– Earlier remnant possibility
Continued..
• Claims that no other section in Aristotle’s corpus follows an endoxic methodology as closely as section 7.1– A lot of the time, he just begins with his own
argumentation
Continued..
• If he does appear to lay down appearances beforehand, they don’t necessarily have to be explained in terms of an ‘endoxic’ interpretation of 7.1– Example: literary transition
Advantages of Rejecting the Endoxic Interpretation
• Does justice to how Aristotle actually goes about engaging in philosophical analysis throughout the rest of his corpus
• One can still reasonably explain situations in which he appears to follow an ‘endoxic method’
The Puzzle
• On the one hand..– Do we tweak our interpretation of the rest of
Aristotle’s corpus to fit with an ‘endoxic’ interpretation of 7.1?
• On the other..– Do we tweak 7.1 to fit with a non-endoxic
interpretation of the rest of Aristotle’s corpus?
My Proposed Resolution: Interpret Aristotle as a ‘Family Resemblance’
Theorist• Aristotle is not committed to an ‘endoxic
method’ • Rather, Aristotle offers a ‘family resemblance’
account of what makes an account good
What is a ‘Family Resemblance’ Account?
• Popularized by Wittgenstein• Argued that not all concepts
operate by grouping different things together by appealing to some necessary and sufficient conditions that all members must share in order to be a part of that group
Continued..• Rather..– A family resemblance
concept groups its members according to a collection of characteristics that are shared across the group members, without any one specific characteristic, or set of characteristics, having to be shared by all of them
Non-Exhaustive List of Qualities that Games Share
• Athletic• Competitive• A Sport• Fun• Have Teams• Have Winners and Losers• Have a Definite End Point• Played on a Board• Played using Equipment• Have Strict, Defined Rules• Have Time Limits
Baseball• Athletic• Competitive• A Sport• Fun• Have Teams• Have Winners and Losers• Have a Definite End Point• Played on a Board• Played using Equipment• Have Strict, Defined Rules• Have Time Limits
Chess• Athletic• Competitive• A Sport• Fun• Have Teams• Have Winners and Losers• Have a Definite End Point• Played on a Board• Played using Equipment• Have Strict, Defined Rules• Have Time Limits
Tag• Athletic• Competitive• A Sport• Fun• Have Teams• Have Winners and Losers• Have a Definite End Point• Played on a Board• Played using Equipment• Have Strict, Defined Rules• Have Time Limits
Courtship• Athletic• Competitive• A Sport• Fun• Have Teams• Have Winners and Losers• Have a Definite End Point• Played on a Board• Played using Equipment• Have Strict, Defined Rules• Have Time Limits
Puzzles in the ‘Saw’ films• Athletic• Competitive• A Sport• Fun• Have Teams• Have Winners and Losers• Have a Definite End Point• Played on a Board• Played using Equipment• Have Strict, Defined Rules• Have Time Limits
Icebreaker Games• Athletic• Competitive• A Sport• Fun• Have Teams• Have Winners and Losers• Have a Definite End Point• Played on a Board• Played using Equipment• Have Strict, Defined Rules• Have Time Limits
Aristotle’s ‘Family Resemblance’ Conception of Good Accounts
• 1. Conforming with our sense perceptions of the subject matter• 2. Conforming with how people pre-critically talk about the
subject matter• 3. Conforming with how a majority of people talk about the
subject matter• 4. Conforming with how all people talk about the subject matter• 5. Conforming with what a reputable expert in that field says
about the subject matter• 6. Conforming with logically consistent argumentation• 7. Conforming with the axioms of that subject matter’s field
‘Good Account’, Example 1
• 1. On The Heavens (270b4-14) “Our theory seems to confirm the phenomena and to be confirmed by them. For all men have some conception of the nature of the gods, and all who believe in the existence of gods at all, whether barbarian or Greek, agree in allotting the highest place to the deity..the mere evidence of the senses is enough to convince us of this, at least with human certainty”
‘Good Account’, Example 1• 1. Conforming with our sense perceptions of the subject matter• 2. Conforming with how people pre-critically talk about the
subject matter• 3. Conforming with how a majority of people talk about the
subject matter• 4. Conforming with how all people talk about the subject
matter• 5. Conforming with what a reputable expert in that field says
about the subject matter• 6. Conforming with logically consistent argumentation• 7. Conforming with the axioms of that subject matter’s field
‘Good Account’, Example 2
• Parts of Animals (643b10-13) “We must attempt to recognize the natural groups, following the indications afforded by the instincts of mankind, which led them for instance to form the class of Birds and the class of Fishes, each of which groups combine a multitude of differentiae, and is not defined by a single dichotomy”
‘Good Account’, Example 2• 1. Conforming with our sense perceptions of the subject matter• 2. Conforming with how people pre-critically talk about the
subject matter• 3. Conforming with how a majority of people talk about the
subject matter• 4. Conforming with how all people talk about the subject matter• 5. Conforming with what a reputable expert in that field says
about the subject matter• 6. Conforming with logically consistent argumentation• 7. Conforming with the axioms of that subject matter’s field
‘Good Account’, Example 3• Topics (104b19-28) “Problems, then, and propositions are to be
defined as aforesaid. A thesis is a paradoxical belief of some eminent philosopher; e.g. the view that contradiction is impossible, as Antisthenes said; or the view of Heraclitus that all things are in motion; or that what exists is one, as Melissus says; for to take notice when any ordinary person expresses views contrary to men’s usual opinions would be silly. Or it may be a view contrary to men’s usual opinions about which we have an argument, e.g. the view maintained by the sophists that what is need not in every case either have come to be or be eternal; for a musician who is a grammarian is so without ever having come to be so, or being so eternally. For even if some do not accept this view, a man might do so on the ground that it has an argument in its favour”.
‘Good Account’, Example 3• 1. Conforming with our sense perceptions of the subject matter• 2. Conforming with how people pre-critically talk about the
subject matter• 3. Conforming with how a majority of people talk about the
subject matter• 4. Conforming with how all people talk about the subject matter• 5. Conforming with what a reputable expert in that field says
about the subject matter• 6. Conforming with logically consistent argumentation• 7. Conforming with the axioms of that subject matter’s field
Additionally..
• There are also distinct moments in Aristotle’s corpus in which he states that certain combinations of criteria are not sufficient for an account to be considered good
‘Insufficient Account’, Example 1
• Generation and Corruption (325a18-22) “Moreover, although these opinions appear to follow logically, yet to believe them seems next door to madness when one considers the facts. For indeed no lunatic seems to be so far out of his senses as to suppose that fire and ice are one: it is only between what is right, and what seems right from habit, that some people are mad enough to see no difference”
‘Insufficient Account’, Example 1• 1. Conforming with our sense perceptions of the subject
matter• 2. Conforming with how people pre-critically talk about the
subject matter• 3. Conforming with how a majority of people talk about the
subject matter• 4. Conforming with how all people talk about the subject matter• 5. Conforming with what a reputable expert in that field says
about the subject matter• 6. Conforming with logically consistent argumentation• 7. Conforming with the axioms of that subject matter’s field
‘Insufficient Account’, Example 2
• Metaphysics (990b-15-17) “Furthermore, of the more accurate arguments, some lead to Ideas of relations, of which we say there is no independent class, and others involve the difficulty of the ‘third man’
‘Insufficient Account’, Example 2• 1. Conforming with our sense perceptions of the subject matter• 2. Conforming with how people pre-critically talk about the
subject matter• 3. Conforming with how a majority of people talk about the
subject matter• 4. Conforming with how all people talk about the subject
matter• 5. Conforming with what a reputable expert in that field says
about the subject matter• 6. Conforming with logically consistent argumentation• 7. Conforming with the axioms of that subject matter’s field
‘Insufficient Account’, Example 3
• On the Heavens (303a21-22) (This comes after argumentation against atomism) “Besides, a view which asserts atomic bodies must needs come into conflict with the mathematical sciences, in addition to invalidating many reputable opinions and phenomena of sense perception”
‘Insufficient Account’, Example 3• 1. Conforming with our sense perceptions of the subject
matter• 2. Conforming with how people pre-critically talk about the
subject matter• 3. Conforming with how a majority of people talk about the
subject matter• 4. Conforming with how all people talk about the subject matter• 5. Conforming with what a reputable expert in that field says
about the subject matter• 6. Conforming with logically consistent argumentation• 7. Conforming with the axioms of that subject matter’s field
Putting These Examples Side by Side..
• First for the ‘good accounts’..
Example 1• 1. Conforming with our sense perceptions of the subject matter• 2. Conforming with how people pre-critically talk about the
subject matter• 3. Conforming with how a majority of people talk about the
subject matter• 4. Conforming with how all people talk about the subject
matter• 5. Conforming with what a reputable expert in that field says
about the subject matter• 6. Conforming with logically consistent argumentation• 7. Conforming with the axioms of that subject matter’s field
Example 2• 1. Conforming with our sense perceptions of the subject matter• 2. Conforming with how people pre-critically talk about the
subject matter• 3. Conforming with how a majority of people talk about the
subject matter• 4. Conforming with how all people talk about the subject matter• 5. Conforming with what a reputable expert in that field says
about the subject matter• 6. Conforming with logically consistent argumentation• 7. Conforming with the axioms of that subject matter’s field
Example 3• 1. Conforming with our sense perceptions of the subject matter• 2. Conforming with how people pre-critically talk about the
subject matter• 3. Conforming with how a majority of people talk about the
subject matter• 4. Conforming with how all people talk about the subject matter• 5. Conforming with what a reputable expert in that field says
about the subject matter• 6. Conforming with logically consistent argumentation• 7. Conforming with the axioms of that subject matter’s field
Putting These Examples Side by Side
• ..then for the ‘insufficient accounts’..
Example 1• 1. Conforming with our sense perceptions of the subject
matter• 2. Conforming with how people pre-critically talk about the
subject matter• 3. Conforming with how a majority of people talk about the
subject matter• 4. Conforming with how all people talk about the subject matter• 5. Conforming with what a reputable expert in that field says
about the subject matter• 6. Conforming with logically consistent argumentation• 7. Conforming with the axioms of that subject matter’s field
Example 2• 1. Conforming with our sense perceptions of the subject matter• 2. Conforming with how people pre-critically talk about the
subject matter• 3. Conforming with how a majority of people talk about the
subject matter• 4. Conforming with how all people talk about the subject
matter• 5. Conforming with what a reputable expert in that field says
about the subject matter• 6. Conforming with logically consistent argumentation• 7. Conforming with the axioms of that subject matter’s field
Example 3• 1. Conforming with our sense perceptions of the subject
matter• 2. Conforming with how people pre-critically talk about the
subject matter• 3. Conforming with how a majority of people talk about the
subject matter• 4. Conforming with how all people talk about the subject matter• 5. Conforming with what a reputable expert in that field says
about the subject matter• 6. Conforming with logically consistent argumentation• 7. Conforming with the axioms of that subject matter’s field
As we can see..
• For Aristotle, there is no one criterion, or set of criteria, that all good accounts must share in order to be considered a ‘good account’
• Furthermore, there is no hard or fast rules for determining which sets of criterion are sufficient for an argument to be considered a ‘good account’
How this Characterization Resolves the Puzzle of Interpreting 7.1
• 7.1 can still be interpreted as gesturing towards a wider methodological commitment in which Aristotle strives to examine whether accounts are in conformity with what is ‘commonly reported’
• Still accurately reflects how Aristotle actually does go about examining whether an account is good or not in his wider corpus