Analysis [had] one of two reputations. On the one hand, there was sterile cataloging of pointless folk wisdom—such as articles analyzing the concept VEHICLE, wondering whether something could be a vehicle without wheels. This seemed like trivial lexicography.
This work is useful. Understanding how people conceptualize and categorize is the starting point for epistemology. If Wittgenstein hadn’t asked what qualified as a game, we might still be trying to define everything in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions.
This work is useful. Understanding how people conceptualize and categorize is the starting point for epistemology. If Wittgenstein hadn’t asked what qualified as a game, we might still be trying to define everything in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions.
I largely disagree, for these reasons.
Wasn’t the whole point of Wittgenstein’s observation that the question of whether something can be a vehicle without wheels is pretty much useless?