1. ‘Family Resemblance’ in Aristotle’s
Philosophical Method
By: James Shortly

2. 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)

3. 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’

4. 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)

5. ‘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’

6. 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

7. 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’

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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’

12. 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?

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. ‘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”

25. ‘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

26. ‘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”

27. ‘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

28. ‘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”.

29. ‘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

30. 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

31. ‘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”

32. ‘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

33. ‘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’

34. ‘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

35. ‘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”

36. ‘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

37. Putting These Examples Side by Side..
• First for the ‘good accounts’..

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. Putting These Examples Side by Side
• ..then for the ‘insufficient accounts’..

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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’

46. 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