по
Journal Menu
> Issues > Rubrics > About journal > Authors > About the journal > Requirements for publication > Editorial collegium > Peer-review process > Peer-review in 24 hours: How do we do it? > Policy of publication. Aims & Scope. > Article retraction > Ethics > Copyright & Licensing Policy > Publication in 72 hours: How do we do it? > Digital archiving policy > Open Access Policy > Open access publishing costs > Article Identification Policy > Plagiarism check policy > Editorial board
Journals in science databases
About the Journal

Публикация за 72 часа - теперь это реальность!
При необходимости издательство предоставляет авторам услугу сверхсрочной полноценной публикации. Уже через 72 часа статья появляется в числе опубликованных на сайте издательства с DOI и номерами страниц.
По первому требованию предоставляем все подтверждающие публикацию документы!
MAIN PAGE > Back to contents
Philosophical Thought
Reference:

Concept, family likeness, prototype: on the way towards adequate classification of philosophical concepts
Karpov Sergei

Post-graduate student, the department of Ontology and Theory of Cognition, M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University

119234, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', g. Moskva (moscow, Russia), ul. Mkr. Leninskie Gory, 1, kv. 823l

ksedgm@gmail.com

DOI:

10.25136/2409-8728.2018.12.28181

Review date:

05-12-2018


Publish date:

02-01-2019


Abstract.

This article analyzes the correlation between three approaches to categorization: classical (coming from Aristotle), based on the concept of family likeness (L. Wittgenstein), and prototypical (E. Rosh). It is demonstrated that these approaches can be differentiated by the specifics of relation established between the members of the category. The acquired result allows observing that prototypical categorization brings the gap with the classical categorization to the conceptual limit (while Wittgenstein’s only outlines it). The example of classification, associated with the “fundamental question” of philosophy, demonstrates the difficulties face by the classifiers using the classical approach for classifying the philosophical concepts. In particular, it is underlined that I. Kant’s philosophy can be referred to all of the three types of classification (idealism, dualism, materialism). From the standpoint of classical approach, such result can testify to “eclecticism” of the concept or limitation of the scope of classification itself (capable to realistically classify not nearly every concept). Nevertheless, both, classical and prototypical approaches allow avoiding such dilemma (classical – through various grounds for division into three initial types; while prototypical – via adding new elements into the category). However, if the classification is challenged with a uniform task (which historically was allotted for the political purposes, but also can serve, for example, in pedagogical), and moreover, the task of minimizing the hermeneutic “violence” (in arranging the concepts by types), the prototypical approach, as demonstrated in the article, solves these issues in a more adequate and explicit manner.

Keywords: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Aristotle, the basic question of philosophy, prototypical theory, category, concept, classifying, classification, Eleanor Rosh, Immanuel Kant
This article written in Russian. You can find full text of article in Russian here .

References
1.
Aristotel'. Kategorii // Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh. M.: Mysl', 1978. T. 2. 687 s.
2.
Vezhbitskaya A. Semanticheskie universalii i bazisnye kontsepty. M.: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul'tur, 2011. 568 s.
3.
Vitgenshtein L. Filosofskie raboty. Ch. I. M.: Gnozis, 1994. 612 s.
4.
Kant I. Kritika chistogo razuma. M.: Nauka, 1999. 655 s.
5.
Kuznetsov V. G. Aristotelevskaya teoriya kategorii i prototipicheskii podkhod // Vestnik moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 7. Filosofiya. 2018. № 1. S. 32-44.
6.
Lakoff D. Zhenshchiny, ogon' i opasnye veshchi: chto kategorii yazyka govoryat nam o myshlenii. M.: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul'tury, 2004. 792 s.
7.
Lenin V. Materializm i empiriokrititsizm // Lenin V. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. T. 18. M., 1968.
8.
Meien S. V., Shreider Yu. A. Metodologicheskie aspekty teorii klassifikatsii // Voprosy filosofii. 1976. № 12. S. 67–79.
9.
Nikiforov A. L. K voprosu ob «osnovnom voprose filosofii» // Filosofiya filosofii. Teksty filosofii: uchebnoe posobie dlya vuzov/ Red.-sost. V. Kuznetsov. M.: Akademicheskii proekt; Fond «Mir», 2012. S. 28–43.
10.
Ogurtsov A. P. Kategorii // Novaya filosofskaya entsiklopediya. T. 2. M.: Mysl', 2010. S. 229-233.
11.
Oizerman T. I. Glavnye filosofskie napravleniya. M.: Mysl', 1984. 303 s.
12.
Pavlinov I. Ya., Lyubarskii G. Yu. Biologicheskaya sistematika: Evolyutsiya idei. M.: Tovarishchestvo nauchnykh izdanii KMK, 2011. 667 s.
13.
Panova N. S., Shreider Yu. A. Printsip dvoistvennosti v teorii klassifikatsii // NTI. Ser. 2. 1975. № 2. S. 3–10.
14.
Rozova S. S. Klassifikatsionnaya problema v sovremennoi nauke. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1986. 224 s.
15.
Engel's F. Lyudvig Feierbakh i konets nemetskoi klassicheskoi filosofii // Marks K., Engel's F. Sochineniya. T. 21. M., 1961. S. 273-317.
16.
Mervis C. B., Rosch E. Categorization of Natural Objects // Annual Review of Psychology. 1981. Pp. 89-115.
17.
Rosch E. Cognitive representations of semantic categories // Journal of Experimental Rsychology: General. 1975. Vol. 104. P. 192–233.
18.
Rosch E. Prototype classification and logical classification: the two systems // New Trends in Cognitive Representation: Challenges to Piaget's Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1983. Pp. 73-86
Link to this article

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.


Other our sites:
Official Website of NOTA BENE / Aurora Group s.r.o.
"History Illustrated" Website