Ordinary Language Philosophy

[bretty]

Anyone have any experience with this? I'm considering ordering some books from some of the prominent philosophers of this movement.

[gilhyle]

What do you mean by 'ordinary language philosophy'

- successors of Wittgenstein
- analytical philosophers
- another definition


Are you interested in the history or the current writers

Why are you interested ?

[bretty]

Okay Sorry I'll be more specific. I'm interested in recommendations.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, I will list you a few titles when my home internet link is working.

In the meanwhile: anything by John Austin and/or Gilbert Ryle.

Wittgenstein himself would not have counted himself as one of this group, since his interests were much wider, but most of his work was in this genre (but it was of a totally different type to Austin and Ryle).

[gilhyle]

How to do things with words, JL Austen: lovely read, philosophical dead end.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


lovely read, philosophical dead end.

You might find it difficult to justify that conclusion! :)

[gilhyle]

I dont think so, but I would say that wouldnt I.

By contrast I would say: Gilbert Ryle: tough read, worth it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


I dont think so, but I would say that wouldnt I.

I agree, but it is obviously easier to say than to do.

Can you walk the walk then?

[gilhyle]

Even when I was a kid I didnt accept dares

[hoopla]

you guys ignore continetal philosophy way too much. sometimes I feel i know more than you on it!

guessing, as always.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You are welocme to it.

[bretty]

What continental philosophy do you want to argue in favour of? I'd be glad to debate against your claims that it is worth any effort. I'll quote one existentialist before stopping any form of jargon... Beauvoir says if every man treated their actions as absolute we'd have no point in discussing abstractions...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, I promised to give you more leads in your desire to read about Ordinary Language Philosophy. Apart from the main authors mentioned above, the best overall book I think is Peter Hacker's 'Wittgenstein's Impact on 20th Century Philosophy' (Blackwell 1996).

Also, if you can get hold of it, try to read John Cook's article 'The Fate of Ordinary Language Philosophy', published in the journal Philosophical Investigations in 1982.

Also, try to read anything by Frank Ebersole, who has attempted to extend Wittgenstein's method into specific areas of Philosophy (but in a more 'Oxford' direction).

However, far better, read anything by Anthony Kenny and Elizabeth Anscombe, which are far more challenging thinkers (the latter by far).

They are not 'Ordinary Language Philosophers', but neo-Aristotelians who have developed W's ideas in that direction -- as I too am doing.

The best example in this genre is, however, Peter Geach, my teacher in logic.

He is definitely not an ordinary language philosopher, but a Fregean, Wittgensteinian Aristotelian (!).

[Angry Young Man]

Didn't Austin write about how law was a system of threats laid down by a gangserish legislature? We did about law in Philosophy. God do I fucking hate Ronald Dworkin. Tosser. Here's three reasons why Americans should be forbidden from philosophy:
1. Ronald Dworkin
2. Robert Nozick
3. American philosophy is largely based on John Locke, who I loathe more than Dworkin.

Anyho, Austin's argument seemed to be quite leftist in its content. Anyone (i.e. Rosa) know of his politics?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

There are two John Austins: one was a legal theorist (who lived 1790-1859), the other was an Oxford Philosopher (1911-1960):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Austin

John Austin (2) and the majority of ordinary language philosophers were socialists. Wittgenstein himself was the next best thing to a Marxist, as were many of his 'followers':

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Wittgenstein.htm

American legal theory (etc) is based on Locke and Montesquieu, but modern American philosophical theory owes more to Frege, Russell, Pierce, Hume and Carnap, than to anyone else.

Unfortunately, there is a strong Hegelain current too. :angry:

[Angry Young Man]

I didn't know Wittgenstein was a socialist. I knew Russell was and Russell taught him. So was ordinary language philosophy that was easier to read or philosophy of language?
And how does Hume have an influence on American philosophy when he wrote tirades against religion?
And am I the only person who wants to punch Dworkin's lights out?

[hoopla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:03 am
What continental philosophy do you want to argue in favour of? I'd be glad to debate against your claims that it is worth any effort. I'll quote one existentialist before stopping any form of jargon... Beauvoir says if every man treated their actions as absolute we'd have no point in discussing abstractions...
i'm not sure what you are saying bretty... that your quote is incomprehensible?

it would be difficult to guess which abstractions he is talking about ut of context, though I could try... if i had any idea who beauvoir is!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RR, well he would have rejected that description of himself, since he despised all such labels, but the things he said, and the people he associated with, and his desire to go and live in the USSR, all show he was as close to being a Marxist as any major philosopher has been since Marx himself.

I put this this way at my site (links removed; references at the page linked to in my previous post):


Most revolutionaries seem to regard Analytic Philosophy as something of a conservative or ideological phenomenon, with Wittgenstein's work perhaps being seen as a particularly good example of this. That view has partly been motivated by the widely held opinion that Wittgenstein was a conservative and that he pandered to mystical and religious ideas.

That this received picture is incorrect can be seen by reading Alan Janik's essays "Nyiri on the Conservatism of Wittgenstein's Later Philosophy" -- which was a reply to Nyiri (1998) --, and "Wittgenstein, Marx and Sociology", both reprinted in Janik (1985), pp.116-57. See also Crary (2000).

In fact, not only were many of Wittgenstein's friends and pupils prominent Marxists -- e.g., Pierro Sraffa, Maurice Dobb, Nicholas Bakhtin, George Thomson, Maurice Cornforth, David Hayden-Guest, and Roy Pascall (cf., Monk (1990), pp.343, 348; Rhees (1984), pp.x, 48; and Sheehan (1993), pp.303, 343) --, but one of his foremost 'disciples' (Rush Rhees) at one point contemplated joining the RCP (i.e., the 1940's Trotskyist version, not that recent right-wing joke of the same name, now happily defunct), and asked Wittgenstein for advice on this. [Cf., Rhees (1984), pp.200-09.]

Rhees and Monk record the many sympathetic remarks Wittgenstein made about Marxism, about workers and about revolutionary activity. While these are not in themselves models of 'orthodoxy', they reveal how close Wittgenstein came to adopting a very weak form of class politics in the 1930's -- certainly closer than any other major philosopher had done since Marx himself; cf., Rhees (1984), pp.205-09. [Cf., also Norman Malcolm's Introduction to Rhees's book, pp.xvii-xviii, and Monk (1990), pp.343-54.]

In fact, Monk reports a comment made by George Thomson on Wittgenstein's attitude to Marxism: "He was opposed to it in theory, but supported it in practice", and notes another friend who remembers Wittgenstein saying that he was "a communist, at heart" (Monk (1990), p.343). He concludes:

"There is no doubt that during the political upheavals of the mid-1930's Wittgenstein's sympathies were with the working class and the unemployed, and that his allegiance, broadly speaking, was with the left….

"Despite the fact that Wittgenstein was never at any time a Marxist, he was perceived as a sympathetic figure by the students who formed the core of the Cambridge Communist Party, many of whom ([David] Hayden-Guest, [John] Cornford, Maurice Cornforth, etc.) attended his lectures." [Monk (1990), pp.343, 348.]

In Rhees's book, Fania Pascall -- who was another Marxist friend of Wittgenstein's, married to Communist Party intellectual Roy Pascall, translator of The German Ideology into English --, reports that Wittgenstein had actually read Marx (cf., Rhees (1984), p.44), but, the source of this information appears to be John Moran ( Cf., Moran (1972)). Garth Hallett's otherwise comprehensive survey omits reference to this alleged fact. [Cf., Hallett (1977), pp.759-75.] But if, as we will see, he had read Lenin, and all his close friends were Marxists, it is a safe bet that he had also read Marx.

Rhees and Monk also note that when Wittgenstein visited Russia he met Sophia Yanovskaya, who was Professor of Mathematical Logic at Moscow University and one of the co-editors of Marx's Mathematical Manuscripts. [Cf., Yanovskaya (1983), in Marx (1983).] She apparently advised him to "read more Hegel" (which suggests he had already read some). [Monk (1990), p.351, and Rhees (1984), p.209.] In fact, Yanovskaya even went as far as to recommend Wittgenstein for the chair at Kazan University (Lenin's old college) and for a teaching post at Moscow University (Monk (1990), p. 351). These were hardly posts one would have offered to just anyone in Stalin's Russia in the mid-1930's, least of all to one not sympathetic to Communism.

[DM = Dialectical Materialism.]

Monk suggests that Yanovskaya formed the (false) impression that Wittgenstein was interested in DM (ibid.), but Drury (another of Wittgenstein's pupils) informs us that Wittgenstein had a low opinion of Lenin's philosophical work (but, exactly which part this refers to we do not know; but this does indicate that Wittgenstein had at least read Lenin since he never passed comments on second-hand reports of other writers' work), but the opposite view of his practical endeavours:

"Lenin's writings about philosophy are of course absurd, but at least he did want to get something done." [Drury, quoting Wittgenstein from recollection, in Rhees (1984), p.126.]

Fania Pascall also records Wittgenstein's friendship with Nicholas Bakhtin (ibid., p.14), and notes that at one time he expressed a desire to go and live in Russia, as we have seen (ibid., pp.26, 29, 44, 125-26, 198-200). In fact he actually visited Russia in September 1935 (cf., Monk (1990), pp. 347-53), when he met the above Professor Yanovskaya. Like many other Cambridge intellectuals at the time his desire to live in the USSR was motivated by his false belief that under Stalin it was a Workers' State. In this regard, of course, his intentions were more significant than his mistaken views. One only has to contrast Wittgenstein's opinion of Russia with that of, say, Bertrand Russell -- his former teacher -- to see how sympathetic in comparison Wittgenstein was to revolutionary Marxism, even if, like many others, he finally mistook the latter for Stalinism. [Cf., Drury's memoir in Rhees (1984), p.144, and Russell (1962).] John Maynard Keynes (another of Wittgenstein's friends) wrote the following in a letter to the Russian ambassador Maisky (who had in fact once been a Menshevik) about Wittgenstein's plans to live in Russia:

"I must leave it to him to tell you his reasons for wanting to go to Russia. He is not a member of the Communist Party, but has strong sympathies with the way of life which he believes the new regime in Russia stands for." [John Maynard Keynes to Maisky, quoted in Rhees (1984), p.199. Also quoted more fully in Monk (1990), p.349.]

In his biography of Wittgenstein, Ray Monk plays down Wittgenstein's proposed move, and, relying on Fania Pascall's view of Wittgenstein's motives, interprets it as a reflection of his attachment to a Tolstoyian view of the Russian peasantry and the 'dignity of manual labour'. While this clearly was a factor, it cannot explain Wittgenstein's positive remarks about the gains he believed workers had made because of the revolution -- but, given what happened to the Russian peasantry in Stalin's Russia in the 1930's, this is surely the least likely explanation! On this, Rhees is clearly a more reliable guide; he knew Wittgenstein better than almost anyone else.

[The full details of Wittgenstein's desire to live in Russia, and his visit, can be found in Monk (1990), pp.340-54.]

His closest friend before he met Rhees was Francis Skinner, who had wanted to volunteer to fight in Spain as part of the International Brigade (he was finally rejected on health grounds). Wittgenstein thought that Alan Turing (who was also one of his 'part time' pupils for a brief period in the 1930's) believed that he (Wittgenstein) was trying to introduce "Bolshevism" into Mathematics, because of his criticisms of the irrational fear of contradictions among mathematicians. [Cf., Monk (1990), pp.419-20; see also Hodges (1983), pp.152-54.]

As Wittgenstein himself said:

"Turing does not object to anything I say. He agrees with every word. He objects to the idea he thinks underlies it. He thinks we're undermining mathematics, introducing Bolshevism into mathematics. But not at all." [Wittgenstein (1976), p.76.]

On this, and Wittgenstein's 'radical Bolshevism', see Ray Monk's on-line essay, here.

"The changes Wittgenstein wished to see are...I believe, so radical that the name 'full-blooded Bolshevism' suggests itself as a natural way to describe the militant tendency of his remarks." [Monk (1995).]

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, Wittgenstein himself declared that his later Philosophy had been inspired by his regular conversations with Pierro Sraffa (Gramsci's friend). The extent of Sraffa's influence is still unclear (however, see below), but Wittgenstein himself admitted to Rhees that it was from Sraffa that he had gained an "anthropological" view of philosophical problems. [Cf., Monk (1990), pp.260-61. Cf., also Malcolm (1958), p.69, von Wright (ND), pp.28, 213, and Wittgenstein (1998), p.16.]

In the Preface to what was his most important and influential work, Wittgenstein had this to say:

"Even more than this…criticism I am indebted to that which a teacher of this university, Mr P. Sraffa, for many years unceasingly practiced on my thoughts. I am indebted to this stimulus for the most consequential ideas of this book." [Wittgenstein (1958), p.viii. Bold emphasis added.]

This is quite remarkable: the author of what many believe to be the most original and innovative philosophical work of the 20th century -- and one that, if correct, brings to an end 2500 years of traditional Philosophy -- claims that his most "consequential" ideas were derived from a man who was an avowed Marxist!

Attempts to reconstruct Sraffa's influence on Wittgenstein are in their early stages, and they are not likely to progress much further unless some hard evidence turns up; to date, these attempts are based largely on supposition and inference. On this, see Sharpe (2002), Davis (2002) and Rossi-Landi (2002), pp.200-04.

Now, it is not being maintained here that Wittgenstein was a closet revolutionary, only that he has been rather badly misrepresented; a demonstrably erroneous view of his political leanings has been fostered by some of his 'disciples', who have (or have had) their own political agendas in mind.

However, a somewhat controversial book published a few years ago -- i.e., Cornish (1999) -- assembles all the available evidence (and there is a considerable amount --, even if some of it is circumstantial) indicative of Wittgenstein's attitude toward revolutionary politics; cf. Cornish (1999), pp.40-87. [I will not pass comment on Cornish's other views since they are not relevant to the aims of this Essay.]

In addition to conservative misrepresentations of Wittgenstein's views, there is an equally spurious idea that his work is identical to the "Oxford Ordinary Language Philosophy" of Ryle, Austin, Warnock, Strawson, Urmson and Hampshire. Beyond a few superficial similarities, Wittgenstein's work bears no resemblance at all to "Oxford Philosophy". On this, see Cavell (1971) and Dummett (1960).

Hume was a big influence on the empiricist trend introduced by Carnap and Russell (influential on Quine, for example).

Ordinary language philosophy is much easier to read than the Philosophy of Language. The latter is a branch of philosophy, and can be highly technical; the former is a way of doing philosophy in general, based on the kind of language you use (or could use) every day.

[IcarusAngel]

From Rosa's post it seems Wittgenstein had flirted with Marxism, but apparently was quite confused about what Marxism actually stood for (his interpretation of the USSR, for example). That's why I recommend studying Russell for "political philosophy" as Russell had quite the understanding of politics in addition to math, logic, etc. For example, he was highly critical of the soviet union, and at the same time in his book "Principles of Social Reconstruction" he says:

"UNDER the influence of socialism, most liberal thought in recent hears has been in favour of increasing hte power of the State, but more or less hostile to the power of private property. On the other hand, syndicalism has been hostile both to the State and to private property. I believe that syndicalism is more nearly right than socialism in this respect, that both private property and the State, which are the tow most powerful institutions of the modern world, have become harmful to life through excess of power, and that both are hastening the less of vitality from which the civilized world increasingly suffers."

so Russell was more likely coming from a Libertarian-Socialist standpoint rather than a marxist viewpoint.

Also, Russell wrote about "language philosophy" quite a bit as much of his philosophical work often read more like psychology than philosophy. In any case, I recommend picking up Russell's philosophy books published by Routeledge as they often contain his explanations of the philosophy of language and his interpretations (i.e.: human knowledge, An Outline of Philosophy, etc.).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Icarus, I think you go to far.

Sure Russell was a great mathematician and logician (although the best critique of his work can be found in Wittgenstein's Tractatus), but a political novice, whose understandimng of the USSR was tainted by his hatred of Bolshevism.

Of course, if you are an anti-Bolshevik yourself, thay might account for your opinion of Russell.

But then, your view will no longer be objective.

However, Russell's philosophy (after 1913), is not worth the paper upon which it was written.

Before then, it is among some of the best written in the analytic tradition.

His best being 'The Principles of Mathematics' and 'On Denoting'.

[bretty]

Originally posted by hoopla+March 21, 2007 07:10 pm--> (hoopla @ March 21, 2007 07:10 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 05:03 am
What continental philosophy do you want to argue in favour of? I'd be glad to debate against your claims that it is worth any effort. I'll quote one existentialist before stopping any form of jargon... Beauvoir says if every man treated their actions as absolute we'd have no point in discussing abstractions...
i'm not sure what you are saying bretty... that your quote is incomprehensible?

it would be difficult to guess which abstractions he is talking about ut of context, though I could try... if i had any idea who beauvoir is! [/b]
What continental philosophy do you suggest is worthy to be looked at?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Possibly it's worth looking at really awful philosophers like Plato, Kant, Berkely, etc, just to know one's enemy.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn, interestingly Berkeley is an ordinary language philosopher, he just drew some rather odd conclusions from his empiricist theory of the mind, and of knowledge.

In some ways he anticipated Wittgenstein.

[Hit The North]

For all the faults of Russell's politics, at least he was an avowed socialist and politically engaged. This, in comparison to Wittgenstein who had no political engagement and who's politics can only be derived from the guess work of his close colleagues.

And if "adopting a very weak form of class politics in the 1930's" is tantamount to being "the next best thing to a Marxist" as Rosa claims, then it only demonstrates how desperate she is to smuggle this alien tradition into the cannon of Marxism.

But if that fails there's always the fall-back position that Witty claimed to want to move to the Soviet Union - probably at a time when most real revolutionaries were being purged by the Stalinist bureaucracy. A round of applause for his political acuity, then. :rolleyes:

It's a lack of understanding which is surpassed by Rosa when she writes:


In fact, Yanovskaya even went as far as to recommend Wittgenstein for the chair at Kazan University (Lenin's old college) and for a teaching post at Moscow University (Monk (1990), p. 351). These were hardly posts one would have offered to just anyone in Stalin's Russia in the mid-1930's, least of all to one not sympathetic to Communism. [emphasis added]

I'm still laughing at that one!

Rosa, instead of relying on the speculation of Wittgenstein's colleagues, pupils and estate agent why not show us where this paragon of philosophical clarity comes out and proclaims: 'I am with the workers' or 'I am a revolutionary'.

Alternatively, demonstrate how any of his ideas contribute to our revolutionary struggle.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


This, in comparison to Wittgenstein who had no political engagement and who's politics can only be derived from the guess work of his close colleagues.

There is some truth in this, but fortunately not much.

However, we can infer W's politics from his words -- I quote many where he declares his class allegiances, which were well to the left of Russell.


And if "adopting a very weak form of class politics in the 1930's" is tantamount to being "the next best thing to a Marxist" as Rosa claims, then it only demonstrates how desperate she is to smuggle this alien tradition into the cannon of Marxism.

Of course, I merely noted this to forestall this sort of ignorant response -- since on the left, up until recently, W's politcis have been portrayed as right wing, which they were not.

However, as good, bad or indifferent as W's politics were, they were a darned sight better than those of that bourgeois mystic Hegel, upon whose ideas those of Z are based (even though he is quite happy to tell one and all that he has never read a word of the latter's work -- so devoted is he to maintaining his impressively ignorant approach to philosophy).


But if that fails there's always the fall-back position that Witty claimed to want to move to the Soviet Union - probably at a time when most real revolutionaries were being purged by the Stalinist bureaucracy. A round of applause for his political acuity, then.

This is your one substantive point --, well it would be if we took the same view of all the Stalinists of the 1930's, who saw the former USSR in the same light. But we do not, and did not.


I'm still laughing at that one!

I can quite see how you would think that laughter is a sound argument, since in your logically-challenged state, it is probably the strongest argument you have.

Even so, only those who think like you that laughter is a sound response will be impressed by this latest, and pathetic, reply of yours.

I have to say, I admire your consistency -- it cannot be easy maintaining such low standards for so long.

You really have to be determined to stay that ignorant.


Rosa, instead of relying on the speculation of Wittgenstein's colleagues, pupils and estate agent why not show us where this paragon of philosophical clarity comes out and proclaims: 'I am with the workers' or 'I am a revolutionary'.

Alternatively, demonstrate how any of his ideas contribute to our revolutionary struggle.

Once again, you need to at least try to read what I write, for I actually say that I do not think Wittgenstein was a revolutionary.

However, his work (as I deploy it) is of great use to us consistent materialists in exposing the mystical ideas your sort prefer to genuine materialism.

And even though your mystical ideas have presided over 150 years of almost total failure, I suspect you are too 'rationally-challenged' to draw the obvious conclusion from this fact, by yourself.

[Angry Young Man]

Oh now really. Is there any post in this sub-forum where you two don't start bickering?


And I blame both Russell and Wittgenstein for the compulsory mathematical logic exam at Cambridge <_< I found a good college, the course looked good, I heard somewhere (although I was sceptical at first) that it has a huge Marxist society, then I saw that in the final year, all students sit a maths logic paper. :angry: grrr.

[IcarusAngel]

Well, Russell and Wittgenstein had a &#39;falling out&#39; to some degree and there was a division between those following Russell and those following Wittgenstein. Russell wanted philosophy to be all encompassing and Wittgenstein wanted it to be more about language alone. Russell&#39;s followers tended to reply with logic where as Wittgenstein&#39;s followers responded mostly by ad-hominem attacks against Russell&#39;s popular philosophy books etc. I guess the debate still goes on.

I would think modern philosophy in academia would tend to err in favor of Russell as he is quoted more often and more widely read, but maybe that&#39;s only because his books often appeal more to the average reader (although his mathematics etc. certainly do not; the "On Denoting" piece is a dog to read as is the first essay in "Logic and Knowledge," not to mention the notation is arcane).

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+March 21, 2007 11:55 pm--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ March 21, 2007 11:55 pm) Icarus, I think you go to far.

Sure Russell was a great mathematician and logician (although the best critique of his work can be found in Wittgenstein&#39;s Tractatus), but a political novice, whose understandimng of the USSR was tainted by his hatred of Bolshevism.

Of course, if you are an anti-Bolshevik yourself, thay might account for your opinion of Russell.

But then, your view will no longer be objective.

However, Russell&#39;s philosophy (after 1913), is not worth the paper upon which it was written.

Before then, it is among some of the best written in the analytic tradition.

His best being &#39;The Principles of Mathematics&#39; and &#39;On Denoting&#39;. [/b]
Russell was against the USSR based on the outcomes of the revolution, not necessary because he was Menshevik or somehow automatically biased. His view was based on that they would never reach a Libertarian-Communist or the "final goal" of "anarchism" (Karl Marx) so he was critical of it. Of course, they never really came close to the goals of Karl Marx and Marx direct decedents were also critical of the USSR.

Russell&#39;s political works (In Praise of Idleness, Roads to Freedom, etc.) do show quite a bit of knowledge of anarchist theory and his more general political works ("Power" etc.) show a vast knowledge of history, politics, etc. However, it is true that he wasn&#39;t exactly a "marxist" etc. but I don&#39;t know anybody else in the analytic tradition who knew more about general politics than Russell did. Russell came from a family that had a history of involvement in politics.

As for his philosophy I guess I&#39;m just a "fan"


Citizen [email protected] 22, 2007 10:18 am
For all the faults of Russell&#39;s politics, at least he was an avowed socialist and politically engaged. This, in comparison to Wittgenstein who had no political engagement and who&#39;s politics can only be derived from the guess work of his close colleagues.

What does modern academia fault Russell for anyway?

Russell demolishes "Pragmatism," (his words are still used by people who are anti-pragmatism), did a great job attacking metaphysics, explained the use of philosophy in ordinary terms, wrote great histories of philosophy, etc. and philosophy still encompasses many areas rather than takes the Wittgenstein approach of merely focusing in one area to be an "aide" to science or whatever.

I can think that his mathematics obviously have been improved on, his theory of types simplified, etc., but his work in mathematics have left their mark in Computer Science and Chomsky cites Russell as an influence in his theory of Transformative Generative Grammar, which is "modern linguistics."

So Russell was able to have a vast impact whereas Wittgenstein only is remembered as a philosopher.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Burn, interestingly Berkeley is an ordinary language philosopher, he just drew some rather odd conclusions from his empiricist theory of the mind, and of knowledge.

In some ways he anticipated Wittgenstein.

:o

Oh my. As in, George "I Deny The Existence Of Matter" Berkeley?

Didn&#39;t see that one coming.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn he didn&#39;t just do that, as I am sure you know&#33;

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Icarus, thanks for those comments; I will not contradict what you say, since Russell (i.e., the pre-1913 Russell) is one of my favourite Philosophers too.

And anyone who likes analytic philosophers like Russell, is, in my book, already on the right side of the fence, as it were, and someone with whom I will not pick a fight (at least here).

I just do not find anything he wrote after 1913 of much value (apart from the odd essay or two, like &#39;On the notion of a cause&#39;).

You are right about Wittgenstein (except the comment about science), but if he is right, then the last 2500 years of philosophy is just a load of hot air.

I find I cannot disagree with that.

Indeed, at my site I am extending this into areas he did not.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RR:


Is there any post in this sub-forum where you two don&#39;t start bickering?

Happily, no, there aren&#39;t.

However, no matter how many times Z receives a pummelling from me, he just keeps coming back for yet more punishment.

There are areas in London where you have to pay for pain like that, but I dish it out for free. :)

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Burn he didn&#39;t just do that, as I am sure you know&#33;

Well, yeah... But it&#39;s kind of a slap to the face for good old materialism, isn&#39;t it? When I first came across him, in fact it was Russell&#39;s History Of Western Philosophy that introduced me, I just read &#39;his denial of the physical world in it&#39;s entirety...&#39; and my eyes popped out of my head. :blink:

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


But it&#39;s kind of a slap to the face for good old materialism, isn&#39;t it?

Well, he was in fact attacking abstractions, of which the materialism of his day seemed to him to be a good example.

And I agree with him about at least that -- we need to be much more concrete about what we mean. In that case, ordinary language is our best guide here.

And, Russell&#39;s History of Philosophy is about as reliable as a Bush/Blair promise. It is so unreliable, I even suspect the page numbering&#33;

[BurnTheOliveTree]

And, Russell&#39;s History of Philosophy is about as reliable as a Bush/Blair promise. It is so unreliable, I even suspect the page numbering&#33;

Damn it, I spent 12.99 on that. :( Seriously, is it worth my reading it now that I have it? I was kind of enjoying the sudden knowledge injection, it&#39;d be nice to think I&#39;d learnt something worth knowing.

Suggestions of a decent history would also be majorly cool beans.

-Alex

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 22, 2007 08:05 pm
Icarus, thanks for those comments; I will not contradict what you say, since Russell (i.e., the pre-1913 Russell) is one of my favourite Philosophers too.

And anyone who likes analytic philosophers like Russell, is, in my book, already on the right side of the fence, as it were, and someone with whom I will not pick a fight (at least here).

I just do not find anything he wrote after 1913 of much value (apart from the odd essay or two, like &#39;On the notion of a cause&#39;).

You are right about Wittgenstein (except the comment about science), but if he is right, then the last 2500 years of philosophy is just a load of hot air.

I find I cannot disagree with that.

Indeed, at my site I am extending this into areas he did not.
Yeah, a lot of the work I actually read is pre-1913. Mostly I&#39;m talking about his books like "Philosophical Essays," "On Denoting," An Analysis of Philosophy, etc.

I consider myself an analytical philosopher too and am interesting in discussing it. As for the last 2500 years of philosophy, I find some of it interesting in terms of ethics etc., but you should know that Russell himself was also critical of past philosophy -- in Unpopular Essays for example he skewers Aristotle&#39;s philosophy, in much the same way a physicist would skewer aristotle&#39;s physics for being so wrong. He kind of opened the door for more criticism of the "greats" and I myself don&#39;t worshiping Aristotle, Plato, etc. -- the philosophers of the twentieth century were also brilliant men, not limited by their time.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:54 pm

And, Russell&#39;s History of Philosophy is about as reliable as a Bush/Blair promise. It is so unreliable, I even suspect the page numbering&#33;

Damn it, I spent 12.99 on that. :( Seriously, is it worth my reading it now that I have it? I was kind of enjoying the sudden knowledge injection, it&#39;d be nice to think I&#39;d learnt something worth knowing.

Suggestions of a decent history would also be majorly cool beans.

-Alex
Just to let you know: I&#39;ve compared it with some modern histories and the treatment of the ancient philosophers is similar to what you&#39;d get anywhere, except Russell will attack philosophers on occasion and criticize them for being superstitious or whatever. I don&#39;t like his treatment of Rousseau, but as a history of civilization it seems pretty good to me.

I assume you bought the one with like a picture of a highway on it? I can&#39;t stand that cover, or the resizing that they did. I have the 1971 touchtone edition with like a picture of a geometric cube and the book is bigger and easier to read imo.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Yeah, I just read Russell&#39;s critique of Aristotle last night. No love lost there...



I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are wholly false, with the exception of the theory of syllogism, which is unimportant. Any person in the present day who wishes to learn logic will be wasting his time if he reads Aristotle or any of his disciples.

-Alex

[IcarusAngel]

Yeah; I like the mountain analogy he uses to show that Aristotle&#39;s "logic" can indeed be flawed and it isn&#39;t just the problem of starting out with a false premise (if you start off with a false premise, it doesn&#39;t mean the reasoning is incorrect if you get a false conclusion).

He also liked to skewer aristotle for holding ancient beliefs:

"Aristotle, in spite of his reputation, is full of absurdities. He says that children should be conceived in the winter, when the wind is in the north, and that if people marry too young the children will be female. He tells us that the blood of the female is blacker than that of males...that women have fewer teeth than men and so on. Nevertheless, he is considered by the great majority of philosophers a paragon of wisdom." --Unpopular Essays

[BurnTheOliveTree]

But to be fair, Rousseau was a very strange man. What was all that about abandoning reason, and believing things because it&#39;s nice to believe them?

Although, again, I have recently read Russell&#39;s thoughts on him, which are plainly hostile.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Yeah, the golden mountains. :D

There&#39;s a very short and sweet polemic against Aristotle&#39;s "science" in Russ Kicks&#39;s 50 Things You&#39;re Not Supposed To Know. I guess people ignore that because of his supposed progress in philosophy.

-Alex

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


Suggestions of a decent history would also be majorly cool beans.

Russell&#39;s history is an excellent read, it is just not all that accurate.

Copleston&#39;s history is far superior, but just boring, and very long&#33;

Anthony Kenny&#39;s recent 3 volumes are much better.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Icarus:


I consider myself an analytical philosopher too and am interesting in discussing it. As for the last 2500 years of philosophy, I find some of it interesting in terms of ethics etc., but you should know that Russell himself was also critical of past philosophy -- in Unpopular Essays for example he skewers Aristotle&#39;s philosophy, in much the same way a physicist would skewer aristotle&#39;s physics for being so wrong. He kind of opened the door for more criticism of the "greats" and I myself don&#39;t worshiping Aristotle, Plato, etc. -- the philosophers of the twentieth century were also brilliant men, not limited by their time.

Ethics, I am afraid, bores me to tears.

Indeed, Russell was critical as you say, but he merely continied in the same tradition.

Wittgenstein, as I see him, sought to end it (as did Marx).

[JimFar]

Bertrand Russell&#39;s History of Western Philosophy was compiled by Russell from a series of lectures that he had been commissioned to deliver at the Barnes Foundation (http://www.barnesfoundation.org/) in suburban Philadelphia. Russell had accepted that position after City College in NYC had been forced to withdraw its appointment of Russell to a lectureship there following a disgraceful campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bertrand_Russell_Case) against him that was orchestrated by an unholy alliance of the Catholic and Episcopal (Anglican) churches in league with the reactionary Hearst press. The philosopher John Dewey, who had led the campaign in favor of Russell, convinced his good friend, Albert Barnes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_C._Barnes) to hire Russell to deliver a series of lectures on the history of philosophy. As it turned out, midway through the lecture series, Barnes became dissatisfied with the quality of Russell&#39;s lectures and promptly fired him. Russell, however, then compiled his lectures into a book, which became a best seller, helped win him the Nobel Prize in literature and whose sales kept him financially secure for the rest of his life. On the other hand, it&#39;s probably the case that Barnes, who did know a thing or two about philosophy, was probably not entirely off the mark in his evaluation of Russell&#39;s lectures. Nevertheless, Russell&#39;s book is a great read, keeping in mind that many of discussions there of various philosophers are very biased, and some of his scholarship was not quite up to snuff.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Jim.

For once, I was not aware of most of it&#33;&#33;