In fact, only certain thing is that human language and human categorization only vaguely portray phenomena of (human) experience, things that we perceive as reality. For example, if we ground our keyboard to a powder, is it still broken ? Or, are only reparable keyboards still keyboards (and what is reparable exactly ) ?Īs you can see, functional definitions are not perfect, but same could be said about other types of definitions (structural, by resemblance etc. Question now arises, what would happen with non-functioning keyboard ? We could define it as "broken", but this is also imprecise. ) or it resemblance to other objects (rectangular, thin, looks like board etc.
) but basically it that does not define keyboard by its structure (made of plastic, has wires etc. Of course, this definition could be further clarified (connected to a computer or typewriter, has keys to be pressed, etc. In our case, definition would be something like "keyboard is an object used for typing letters and other signs". (He might write today 'A "keyboard" is any device used in front of monitors for catching crumbs, dirt, and spilled liquids, and holds the distinction of being originally designed specifically to slow down typing.)įunctional definition (of a object) is a definition based on a (primary) function. Ambrose Bierce is famous for satirical definitions to entertain. A legislative body interested in a legal definition which is technical in a different sense, and would be broad to ensure, for example, that more rather than fewer 'keyboards' are taxed.
An electronics manufacturing consortium would have a need for a different definition, say a precising definition than an end-user. How a keyboard is defined may depend on the context. This is where the question of normativity comes into play. Does a chair need a tall back, or one at all? Most would consider a chair without a back a stool, but at what height does the back make a stool a chair? Does a chair have to have a certain height? Most chairs have four legs, but if you take away one, is it still a chair? Sure. Rather, there are a general set of qualities that an object has, and no one quality or property is absolutely essential. Prototype theory was inspired by latter Wittgenstein's family resemblance observation and holds that necessity and sufficiency is insufficient to describe how our brains categorize. Therefore, there is a distance between focal, or prototypical members of the category, and those that continue outwards from them, linked by shared features. For example, basketball and baseball share the use of a ball, and baseball and chess share the feature of a winner, etc, rather than one defining feature of "games".
#Define claviatura series#
Wittgenstein's theory of family resemblance describes the phenomenon when people group concepts based on a series of overlapping features, rather than by one feature which exists throughout all members of the category. The reason for that is grounded in what linguistics tells us about how the brain categorizes. I suspect, however, that most people surveyed would still consider a broken keyboard, a keyboard. A keyboard with no switches is not a keyboard, and one with a quarter functioning is somewhat a keyboard, and if it has almost all, then it's almost a complete keyboard. Instead of binary true and false, in or out of categories, it is or it isn't, one can simply ask to what degree. That could be one way of answering the question, but the questions raised point in the direction of what is known as graded membership like in fuzzy logic. If it's a keyboard with 101 keys, and one breaks, it's reasonable to call it a keyboard, and yet if it has no functioning keys, not really much of one at all. Like the ship of Theseus, we can even make this more interesting by asking 'at what point if I remove keys, will it still be a keyboard'. You rightfully point out that a keyboard that doesn't function might not be a useful keyboard, but still appears to be one.
A 'keyboard' is anything that is a keyboard doesn't really solve the question of what is the fundamental essence of a keyboard. Traditionally, philosophers have gravitated towards necessity and sufficiency as a way to define words using use-mention distinction. 'What makes something what it is' is a very ontological question, but what you've spotted is an issue raised by Ludwig Wittgenstein and his observation of family resemblances. This is related to the ancient problem known as the ship of Theseus. What you are getting at is a question about the nature of definition. In short form, it depends on how you WANT to define keyboard.
0 kommentar(er)
