There are different types of analytical philosophy. Logical atomism and
positivism stressed logic but modern symbolic logic rather than syllogistic
logic--although the latter can be incorporated as part of symbolic logic.
But the method is analysis and in both atomism and logical positivism there
is a definite theory of meaning that ties in with the Humean distinction
between relationships of ideas (maths and logic) and matters of fact
(contingent truths about the "world"). The positivists held that
traditional speculative philosophy contained propositions that were neither
analytically true or false (as math and propositions of logic) nor
verifiable through observation and experience ie. contingent truth or
falsehoods, matters of fact... BUt this is just one stream of analytical
philosophy and would include people such as Carnap, Russell, and the early
Wittgenstein (Tractatus) G.E. Moore represents a different stream stressing
analysis without any ideal language in mind and using ordinary language
rather than technical and formalized concepts. Moore did not follow the
positivists in regarding traditional metaphysics as meaningless. Rather he
tried to puzzle out what traditional metaphysicians might mean and often he
tries to show that what is said is false. Eg. time is not unreal I had my
breakfast before my lunch !.....Moore came to philosophy not from science or
maths but from the classics....
Austin is even further away from the positivist and atomist group
stressing that philosophers really faill to understand how language works
and subjecting
other analysts such as Moore and Ayer to a clever and ruthless critique.
Austin is a master at delineating the nuances of the English language.and
of exposing how philosophers misuse and misunderstand it...In his later work
he began to look at spoken language a bit more systematically ie. How to do
things with words...
and this began the whole speech act stream.....Searle.....Alston...and some
of this was adopted into Habermas' views on the ideal speech scenario...no
doubt causing Austin to turn over in his grave..
The later WIttegenstein is in many ways contradictory to the atomist
and positivist trends. He considers that positivists and his own views on
language were quite wrong. Viewed at from the point of view of an ideal
language ordinary language is seen to have all sorts of problems...ie proper
names with no referent...that are not really problems at all...if u consider
for example how language is actually used.. A lot of traditional problems
will dissolve (ie how can we really know that another is in painz) if we
understand how our language works and don't imagine that some theory must be
true.
Analytical philosophers are vastly different from one another.. At
most they have family resemblances..
Cheers, Ken Hanly.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 10:30 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:6065] Re: Re: Re: Have You Read All These Books?
>
> The _official_ or desired method of AP is logic? then what distinguished
it
> from Aristotle? of from any other school of philosophy (except maybe post
> modernism)? haven't almost all philosophers since Aristotle thought that
> formal logic was extremely revealing if not absolutely necessary to clear
> thinking? Does AP add anything to logic that previous philosophers didn't
> know about?
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
