Andif we take this comparison still a bit further, then || , to extend this comparison, it is clear that the degree to which the sharp picture can be similar to || resemble the indistinct one, depends on the degree of indistinctness in || of the latter. For suppose you had an indistinct picture and had to sketch || draw a “ || ‘corresponding” || ’ sharp picture. In the former || first there is an indistinct || a blurred red rectangle; you replace it by a sharp one. Of course – various such sharp rectangles might be drawn which correspond || to correspond to the indistinct || blurred one. – But if in the original the colours run || merge into one another without any || a trace of a boundary, then will it not || won't it be || become || isn't it then a hopeless task, to draw a sharp picture corresponding to the indistinct || blurred one? Won't you then have to say, || : “Here I might just as well draw a circle as a rectangle, or a heart shape; all the colours run into one another just anyhow. Everything, and nothing, – is || ; everything's correct, and nothing's correct.” – And this is the position in which anyone finds himself, for instance, who searches for definitions in aesthetics or in ethics || you find yourself if, e.g., in aesthetics or in ethics you search for definitions which correspond to our concepts.
     Always ask yourself, in this difficulty: “How did we learn the meaning of this word – ‘gut || good’, for instance? By what examples; in which language games?” You will then see more easily that the word must have a family of meanings.