{"id":4614,"date":"2021-10-15T18:31:55","date_gmt":"2021-10-15T16:31:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4614"},"modified":"2025-03-28T07:50:18","modified_gmt":"2025-03-28T06:50:18","slug":"4614-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/4614-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Analogy 1: Intra-Categorical Analogy"},"content":{"rendered":"

INTRA-CATEGORICAL ANALOGY<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

Intra-categorical analogy<\/em> is based on the relationship between individuals belonging to the same category. See Categorisation and Nomination<\/a> for a definition of the concept of category; the process of categorising individuals; the organisation of categories into classifications<\/a> and the corresponding forms of syllogistic reasoning<\/a>,<\/p>\n

1. From identity to intra-categorical<\/em> analogy and circumstantial analogy<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

1.1\u00a0Individual identity<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

An individual is identical with itself (neither similar nor dissimilar); it is not \u201cmore or less\u201d identical with itself. This self-evidence establishes the principle of identity<\/em> \u201cA<\/strong> = A<\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n

1.2\u00a0Identity of indiscernibles<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

Two different perfectly identical individuals, for example products from the same industrial production chain, are materially identical, i.e. perceptually indistinguishable. Everything that can be said about one can be said about the other; their descriptions coincide, they share all their properties, whether essential (categorical)<\/em> or accidental<\/em> (incidental).<\/p>\n

Distinction depends on the observer, the layman sees no difference, and believes that \u201cit’s all the same<\/em>\u201d, while the specialist makes crucial distinctions.<\/p>\n

1.3\u00a0Intra-categorical analogy<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

Intra-categorical analogy is the relationship between the members of a category C<\/strong>. All members share, by definition, the characteristics defining the category. The expression \u201canother C<\/strong>\u201d refers to another member of the same category C<\/strong>. Two beings belonging to the same category are identical for this category<\/em>; a whale and a rat are identical from the point of view of the category \u201c\u00ad\u2014 be a mammal<\/em>\u201d. This categorical identity is a partial identity, compatible with major differences; two beings of the same category are said to be analogous<\/em> or similar<\/em>. They are comparable<\/em> in respect of their other non-categorical properties. Chicken eggs are all similar as eggs; one egg is identical to another egg; it is comparable to all other eggs in terms of freshness, size, color, etc. See Comparison<\/a>.<\/p>\n

1.4\u00a0Circumstantial analogy<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

An individual a<\/strong> who has the characteristics (x, y, z, t<\/strong>), is similar to all individuals who have any of those characteristics, whether essential or incidental.<\/p>\n

The descriptors of two objects define the point of view<\/em> from which they are equivalent; two entities are similar when their descriptions overlap, contain a common part, which may or may not include all or some of their essential characteristics. In other words, this common part generates a category, which may or may not make sense. We might speak of circumstantial analogy<\/em>..Alice and a snake are identical from the point of view of the category \u00ab\u00a0– is a long-necked egg-eater\u00a0\u00bb, S. Definition<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2. Intra-categorical analogy as induction or deduction<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

Intra-categorical analogy can be reconstructed as an induction or a deduction:<\/p>\n

2.1\u00a0As an induction<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

O<\/strong> is similar to P
\nP<\/strong> has the properties w, x, y, m
\nO<\/strong> has the properties w, x, y
\n<\/strong>So O<\/strong> probably has also property m<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

From an overall judgment of analogy between two beings, based on the shared features w, x, y<\/strong> … we conclude that if one has the property m<\/strong> then the other most probably also possesses m<\/strong>. In other words, analogy is pushed towards identity.<\/p>\n

2.2\u00a0As a deduction<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

O <\/strong>is similar to P
\nP<\/strong> has the property m
\n<\/strong>Conclusion: O<\/strong> probably has the property m<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n

O<\/strong> is similar to P<\/strong>. This means that they share a common set of properties, and therefore belong to the category C<\/strong> defined by these properties. As members of the same category C<\/strong>, O<\/strong> and P<\/strong> are likely to share other properties, including m<\/strong>. This means that the predicate \u00ab\u00a0\u2014\u00a0is like<\/em>\u201d is to be interpreted as a weaker form of \u00ab\u00a0\u2014 is the same as\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>; analogy is to be seen as a weakened identity.<\/p>\n

Deduction and induction are regarded as valid forms of reasoning. The purpose of discussing about the possibility of reducing analogy to deduction or induction is to determine whether or not analogy is also a valid form of reasoning. Analogical reasoning is sometimes used to prove the existence of God, so the ideological stakes are high.<\/p>\n

3. Arguments based on intra-categorical analogy<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

\u2014 Two individuals belong to the same category if they have the same definition<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Categories may be graded S. Rule of Justice<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Categorical analogies may be restructured see A pari<\/em><\/a>; Definition (III)<\/a>.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

4. Refutation of categorical analogy<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

In one or other aspect, everything is like everything else, and analogies can be more or less \u201cfar-fetched\u201d. Any rejected categorical analogy will be dubbed fallacious and denounced as a confusion, an amalgam<\/em> (Doury 2003, 2006).<\/p>\n

Intra-categorical analogy can be refuted by showing that the category created from those two beings is not based on essential features, but on some accidental property; in general, the generated class is deemed irrelevant. The nonsensical analogy \u201cChinese ~ Butterfly\u201d, ironically discussed by Musil, illustrates the perils of circumstantial analogy, based on the arbitrary choice of a non-essential feature, here the \u201clemon-yellow\u201d color.<\/p>\n

There are lemon yellow butterflies; there are also lemon-yellow Chinese people. So, in a sense, butterflies can be defined as miniature winged Chinese people. Butterflies and Chinese people are symbolic of sensual pleasure. Here we can see for the first time a glimmer of a possible match, never considered before, between the great period of the moth fauna and Chinese civilization. The fact that butterflies have wings and not the Chinese people is only a superficial phenomenon. [\u2026] Butterflies did not invent powder: precisely because the Chinese have done it before them. The suicidal predilection for the lights of some nocturnal species is still an artifact of the past, which is difficult to explain in view of the daylight understanding of this morphological relationship between butterflies and China.<\/span>
\nRobert Musil, [Spirit and Experience<\/em>], [1921] [1]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

The analogy relationship has difficulties with transitivity, S. Relation<\/a>. Intra-categorical analogy is transitive: if A<\/strong> and B<\/strong> on the one hand, B<\/strong> and C<\/strong> on the other hand, are said to be similar because they possess the same essential features, A<\/strong> is thus similar to C<\/strong>. Circumstantial analogy is not transitive: nothing proves that if, on the one hand, the descriptions of A<\/strong> and B<\/strong> have common parts, and, on the other hand, the description of B<\/strong> and C <\/strong>have common parts, then the description of A<\/strong> and C<\/strong> will also have also common parts. Khallaf invokes a traditional analogy to criticize the concatenation of analogies:<\/p>\n

A man is walking on the beach trying to find similar shells; once he finds a shell similar to the original, he throws away the original shell and goes on to find a seashell which resembles the second, and so on. When he has found the tenth shell, he should not be surprised to see that it is totally different from the first in the series. (Khall\u00e2f [1942], p. 89)<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> Quoted in Jacques Bouveresse, Prodiges et vertiges de l’analogie<\/em> [Wonders and Dizziness of Analogy<\/em>]. Paris: Raisons d’Agir, 1999. P. 21-22.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

INTRA-CATEGORICAL ANALOGY Intra-categorical analogy is based on the relationship between individuals belonging to the same category. See Categorisation and Nomination for a definition of the concept of category; the process of categorising individuals; the organisation of categories into classifications and the corresponding forms of syllogistic reasoning, 1. From identity to intra-categorical analogy and circumstantial analogy […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4614","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4614","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4614"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4614\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13829,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4614\/revisions\/13829"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4614"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4614"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4614"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}