The Human Evolution Theory Is But A Wittgenstein Language-Game

Abstract

Wittgenstein in the Blue Books speaks of our craving for generality in connection with our tendency to look for something in common to all the entities which we assume under a general word or term. According to him, misconceptions arise when we tend to look for something ‘common’ to all the entities which we then associate with a general term indicating quality or property. Taking note of this insight of Wittgenstein, we note that our propensity for generalization is what buttresses the mode of inference in the human evolution theory. Clearly, the theory uses concepts anchored on a constellation of terminology belonging to Wittgenstein’s notion of “language games,” i.e. “family resemblances,” “form of life,” “move,” and “grammar.” Complex taxonomic systems (phylogenic trees) have been constructed founded on a linguistic-conceptual hybrid, i.e. the term ‘family resemblance’ mixed with the term ‘common ancestry.’ With phylogeny as (false) ‘evidence’ of common ancestry, action was then propelled by the words ‘family resemblance’ in the sense in which ‘objects,’ e.g. fossil skulls found in geological sites dated millions of years old, resemble ‘modern’ skulls. The biological concept of ‘forms of life’ can be pitted against Wittgenstein's "form of life" concept. The latter is the cultural environment in which the language game occurs, and is applicable to the "community which is bound together by science and education" (Wittgenstein, 1969, p. 38e). Insofar can we consider this ‘community bound together’ as a fertile ground for the culture of semiotic practices. The existing ‘scientific’ theories of the origin of man are the outcome of a reality built by the action motivated or boosted by the notional use of words. The ‘language’ of phylogeny, on closer analysis, is really simply a categorization based on ‘family resemblance’ in extended application through the use of the words ‘ancestral  taxon.’