Nooks do burnish a gloom

I'm not taking, but am trying to follow along at least some of the readings in, a class reading Jackson/Pettit/Smith's article "Ethical Particularism and Particulars", in which is made this claim:

It might be objected that, pace what we said before in the preliminaries, Wittgenstein's example of family resemblances shows that this line of thought is mistaken.  A diet of examples, or putative examples, can give us understanding of a term, can allow us to grasp a concept, without its being the case that there is a pattern exemplified by the examples, namely, the pattern whose grasp underlies our ability to say of new cases whether or not they fall under the concept.  What shows this is that, in the case of family resemblance concepts, new cases often call for decision—perhaps arbitrary, perhaps guided by "external" considerations.  But then, the argument might continue, there is no pattern, because if there were, no decision would be called for.  However, if there is no pattern in the diet of examples, every new case would call for decision, and any decision would be as good, as any other.  Sceptics about meaning can perhaps embrace this conclusion, but meaning scepticism is a high price to pay for particularism in ethics.

I don't know much about what skepticism about meaning actually involves (despite ostensibly having read something about it), though I do know at least two people who don't believe in literal meaning, but I'm extremely uncertain of the success of the above line of argument.  (For that matter, I'm not sure what to make of the earlier claim that a pattern does actually underlie family resemblance concepts, though "it can be difficult to spot or state" it.  If that were the case, wouldn't we be well advised, at least from a certain perspective that's probably not so unpopular, to work really hard at spotting and then stating the pattern, after which we could conclude that it was the pattern, and not a system of family resemblances, that gives the concept's instances?) 

Comments

[bitchphd]

Yeah, but that would be teleological.

Example. Everyone knows what a "novel" is, and everyone did back when people started writing them. Then, as now, people talked about what the essential elements were, and then, as now, people didn't agree. There are always exceptions that nonetheless "feel" like novels and are included in the genre.

Riddle me that, smarty.

[dave zacuto]

Perhaps they meant "diet" in the sense of a deliberative body?

[mmf!]

Dear Ben,

Speaking of burnishing a gloom... I was wondering if you might answer a question for me: what was the name of the non-complicated non-electric espresso maker that you recommended on Unfogged some time back?

I've searched the comment threads more than once but can't seem to find it. I'd like to share it with someone who loves the Bialetti Mokka Express but has gone through 2 of them already and should maybe try something else.

Would be very grateful for your help. Happy to reciprocate in German House music recommendations or any other way you prefer. You can email me at the address above or reply in comments, and I will find it. Thanks much.
--mmf!

[ben wolfson]

…any other way I prefer?

[mmf!]

i am a generous soul. or, er, something.

thanks though.