Robert asked:

Could someone explain to me as to what extend Wittgenstein's statements in Philosophical
Investigationsabout "family resemblances" (and therefore the impossibility of constructing
philosophical generalisations regarding language, meaning and a lot more) is not a philosophical
statement? (Since according to para.128 there aren't any.)

============

The idea of "Family Resemblances" can be found in Philosophical Grammar,in The Blue and Brown
Booksand inPhilosophical Investigations,especially from paragraphs 65 to 88. Such ideas can't be
regarded as philosophical considerations because they are not proposed as a conceptualization but
as a description of the language. They could appear in a "Manual of Language", but not in a
"Philosophical Compendium on Problems of Language", for the "family resemblances" are just a
verification. Such is the language, according to Wittgenstein. Descriptions are not philosophical.

Actually, what is at stake here is just the fight to what is considered philosophical. If someone asks
"what is a game?", we are tempted to make generalizations, for instance, "a game is a pastime". For
a professional football player, this would be hardly true. "A game includes the possibility of victory or
defeat" would be hardly true for a child that bounces a ball. And so on...What Wittgenstein
demonstrates is only that there are certain similarities between what we call games, and that these
similarities cannot be taken as a definition of games. I emphasize the word demonstrates.To point to
something doesn't mean to propose a definition, therefore, it could hardly be considered as a
philosophical task.

Mauricio Micheletti

127