Analytic Philosophy
The Wiki article on Analytic Philosophy is a shocker. It needs editing to make it a decent account of this fine tradition. Or perhaps to point out its folly. In any case, take a look and let us know what you think.
What is analytic philosophy, exactly? In ten words or less, if you can. What are the characteristics specific to analytic philosophy, as opposed to... what?
What is analytic philosophy, exactly? In ten words or less, if you can. What are the characteristics specific to analytic philosophy, as opposed to... what?
Comments (67)
Continental philosophy tends to be broader and a little more abstruse. If you receive a philosophical education in the US it's probably going to be analytic or possibly pragmatic. I've heard continental is more popular in Europe.
EDIT: Analytic philosophy can be super-critical. What we would do is basically read an article, construct the author's argument with his premises, and then basically once that's done look for potential criticisms. I always needed to be very precise with wording.
AP relies on conceptual analysis and formal logic/truth tables.
An 'analytic philosopher' attempts to clarify problems* until they're solvable. :nerd:
Means in need of critical ends.
Primarily, tools and techniques 'borrowed' from - developed for - linguistics, logic and/or mathematics. Thus, (stereotypically?) the rigorously incremental, descriptive and instrumental clarity of her statements and arguments.
Well ... a 'continental philosopher' attempts to filter-out, or foreground, intractable questions from the background noise of (apparently) answered, or tractable, ones. Hermeneutics, semiotics and/or phenomenology seem to predominate. As well ambiguity (and obscurity) of his expressions since 'clarity' is often (mis)taken as a symptom of shallow - insufficient (ideologically given or blocked?) - explication. :cry:
Ends in need of unambiguous means.
*(non-trivial formal, conceptual, methodological & theoretical)
I'm no philosopher, but the article looks good to me. What in particular do you find in error? Be specific, please. :chin:
Was that in there?
Isn't the juxtaposition between analytic and continental a bit trite? Does analytic philosophy have to be defined in contrast only to continental philosophy?
Successfully, since many articles there have had my words for quite a while. Perhaps I do know something after all...
@Pfhorrest is another vandal. We are wondering who else we might bring on board.
So....
Other branches of philosophy don't do this?
That's a start.
Yeah - I agree. Is that enough?
No. A contrast of complementaries rather than opposites. Means-ends. Ends-means. As you've suggested elsewhere ... You've another in mind?
Walter Kaufman said philosophy has always been divided: analytical vs existential. He said it's very rare to see a philosopher who's both. He thought Socrates might have been both.
I like that take because it's not biased for or against. I never listen to biased explanations.
Nuh. Stirring the possum.
I'm Reading Grayling's History of philosophy. I love the quote "[AP} is not really a new style, except in one particular, which is it employment of tools drawn from the new logic that Frege, Russell and others developed..."
The Wiki article needs something along these lines.
Four years at uni. All work handed in then marked down if you used Wiki as a reference.
Analytic/continental - analytic/discursive. Isn't the standard interpretation that Socrates was analytic, but Plato's version him was discursive? that is, full of shite.
:razz:
I've done seven years time; plus that funny little bit were I got confused and did a course on entrepreneurship majoring in Ancient History.
See, if you wrote an article about analytical philosophy, I'd pick up on your bias and abandon you pretty quickly. I want as close to zero bias as I can get, especially if it's something new to me.
Anyway, nice to see Banno running with my half-thought-out idea from another thread. Wikiproject Philosophy really needs new blood.
I still think the folk here don't have the balls to put their ideas to a real test.
In the other place, it's different.
Quoting Banno
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea.
It’s literally one click to fix anything you break, and if you stick around to talk to the people who revert it, you’ll probably stand a good chance of making improvements. “Be bold” is literally the first step of the normal wiki process (followed by reversion and discussion if there are any problems with your bold moves).
The more eyes the better, and WP philosophy articles have sadly few eyes on them.
And, surprisingly, it works - @SophistiCat?
Well, there's also pragmatism.
I think a case could be made for what you're saying but in my experience the two schools have veritable differences at least looking to the past. Maybe they are converging; I don't know.
I was trying to keep it 10 words or less. To elaborate, as far as I know, continental philosophy is based on more of a historical approach/ systems approach. It is more free form. Analytic philosophy is mainly based on a few assumptions in its methodology: language analysis matters (as errors in vague language can lead to pseudo-statements or "nonsense"), science matters (as what is said about the universe must be assumed to be verified/falsified through empirical observations/experimentation), and logic matters (as how ordinary language can be reconstructed to become coherent analytic statements is most important for any "truth" to be discovered about the terms used). Analytic philosophy is thus heavily based on analysis of language for underlying logic, analysis of empirical/scientific data, and making sure language is clear and precise without any ambiguities. At least, that is the goal perhaps.
What gets lost with this emphasis is often the structural understanding of metaphysics/epistemology that you would get with the contintentals who are more willing to provide big picture understandings. This approach is more adventurous and related to normal human thought-process, but the downside is the terms are often bogged down in vague self-referential terms. However, continental philosophy done well, takes into account clarity of language used, defines its terms well, and provides a step-by-step basis for the system-building.
In both analytic and continental traditions, often people can be speaking past each other as each are working in their own little sphere of historical development where the terms are only clear to those specialized in them. The most useful philosophical texts, in my opinion, would provide historical understanding of terms, methodology, and approaches, thus providing context of why they are using the ones they are. This is of upmost significance in philosophy where nothing is set in stone. It is not a science like chemistry, where terms can be assumed and not explained from historical development. That is my opinion though.
Perhaps the same will be said of mathematics. There's a crew working indirectly on that project on this very forum. :smile:
I am fearless when it comes to words and standing behind what I say, (fistfights, streetfights, jail cells, and employee positions in a bank are a completely different matter), but I haven't the slightest clue what analytic philosophy means, and what continental philosophy means. I asked once, I think it was on this site, and I got a short answer: "(...two pages of incomprehensible lingo, peppered with 300000 pages of recommended reading...)" So I gave up on the idea of ever getting to know the meanings in the short time that's left for me on this globe.
I pass the torch to someone else. 3017Amen? or Qwibbjizz. Whoever.
Music composition, sex, and pan cake mixes are just around the corner, too. Robots will have a much better sex life than humans could ever dream of. "I have a wet dream" is my motto for the future Robotlings.
well -- here's an attempt at replacing the whole first paragraph into something succinct. Then move the bullet points down below to different features, maybe. Tried to cut out the compare/contrast type stuff because I generally don't think there's a distinction to be made between analytic/continental/existential/marxist/whatever. They're just historical categories.
I signed up for an account to edit, but the editing portal was... intimidating. lol
If I have time in a while I will move on the dot points.
Sellars is a special exception for me. if anyone does anything on wiki about AP, make Sellars the major saint.
Perhaps another or easier (at least for me) way of looking at it would be through lens of the movement known as Logical Positivism. This Analytical approach seems to think in terms of either/or. Either tautological/mathematical truths exist, or synthetic contingent truths exist. But not both together.
IMO, although a lot of what philosophy does in expressing truth is through the logic of language (what we do on this forum, books, etc. which is fine) there are other ancient/existential/postmodern/Continental-Kantian things like cognitive intuition, phenomenology, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and other cognitive phenomena for which Analytical/Logical Positivists deny (including contradictions and paradox).. To me, the Analytical approach would be to deny any real existential import or angst or emotion, etc. relative to figuring out the human condition and why we exist.
Thus, Analytical/Logical Positivists would default to dichotomization of truth's being either a priori or a posterior, but not both. A Positivist would deny the synthetic a priori (all events must have a cause) judgement in exploring truth. They think that either mathematical truth's exist (and tautological necessary truth's exist), or empirical contingent truth's exist. But not existential phenomena associated with living life and the sentient human condition (why we wonder about things, care about things like Love, the Will, and other metaphysical/psychological wants and needs, etc.).
Scroll down to 'Analytic/Synthetic gap and Cognitive Meaningfulness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
I hope some of that helps. Again, all this is just my interpretation, so I could stand corrected. And, as it relates to Analytical/Continental Philosophy/Post Modernism, I've posted this amusing video before:
Good points. Even though, it's anachronistic (because he lived before the distinction of analytic/continental), Schopenhauer would be a great model for (good) continental philosophy. He sets out a large overarching premise about life/universe (the world is Will and Representation), and then builds a system, step-by-step, using mainly Kantian distinctions of phenomena and noumena, to explicate how the world can be subjective and objective. This would probably not fly in analytic circles. Would you be able to explain perhaps, 3017amen, how it is analytics would object to Schopenhauer's approach? Based on what you wrote, the main thing they would object to is mixing a priori with synthetic, which is the Kant approach.
Thanks Schop1.
I like Schopenhauer, particular his metaphysical philosophy. For instance when I studied music, he was really the only 'philosopher proper' to really touch the subject matter. He acquiesced to the fact it [music]was a genuine phenomenon, affecting human cognition in a way which could not truly be explained using rational analytical methods (neither a priori or a posteriori empirical approach). Similarly, his views about the Will and/or the Metaphysical Will in Nature was revealing and something beyond rational explanation.
My short answer to your most intriguing question about how Analytics' would try to explain, say, the Will, would be some euphemistic denial including most likely an extraneous exposition that at best, would indeed result in the need to transcend such nonsense via the infamous Kantian escape from that 'dogmatic slumber'.
To posit the obvious, once again, I would have to argue that dichotomizing a priori and a posteriori kinds of truth's through Analytical philosophy (Logical Positivism), represents yet another dangerous paradigm to overcome. Kant saw that of course. He saw the need to go beyond and transcend causation, as a normal human response to the existential human condition. Call him a sensitive, intuitive, self-aware man, I don't know... .
At the end of the day, I really don't know how the Analytical philosopher would try to circumvent the obvious. Being an existentialist myself, I would have to default to cognitive science/ Maslow here: 'What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you.'
I would love to hear from other's....or perhaps you might could elucidate some... .
Perhaps the analytics would say that Schop has to define "Will" more precisely. They would not let him get away with making his own definition. Rather, they would want the theory to be tied to some empirically verifiable psychological one. Thus, they would probably find an appropriate model in psychology that corresponds to Schop's Will and use that as a jumping off point to explain Will. Then they would use perhaps counterexamples of other psychological theories and show how those would not work. However, I think most would simply not make a jump to posit Will as a force beyond psychology as that would be a category error perhaps. Overall, they would find the claims too speculative. Making leaps from human subjective viewpoint to the whole world.
One thing I think I'd stand by is saying that while rigor and clarity are defining features of analytic philosophy -- even values commonly agreed upon -- that doesn't mean that these values are exclusively analytical, just definitive for analytic philosophers.
The page is kinda a spaghetti mess and I'm trying to untangle it bit-by-bit as I go about all my things in life, but I was going with the approach that analytic philosophy can be characterized without reference to other traditions since I don't think there's a good distinction to be made between the usual suspects -- i.e. continental or existential, etc.
Perhaps you can elucidate your own views. You seem to not put any positive statements about analytic philosophy, thus shooting others down from the back row. You can't ask others to do something and not participate yourself. I think 3017amen had some correct understanding of early analytic philosophy. Perhaps then, there is no analytic philosophy then. I myself, have given three defining features in a previous post, but no one really made a comment on it one way or another.
Yes I've noticed. One thing I disagree with you on is that it can be hermetically sealed as something that does not need to be in distinction with other forms of philosophy. If there is analytic philosophy, then it would be revealing what is NOT analytic philosophy or what other schools of philosophy would look like in comparison. Otherwise, anything can be considered analytic philosophy. By that I mean nothing can be considered analytic philosophy either. You need some distinction there with other methods to compare it to.
Quoting 3017amen
That's demonstrable bullshit; Read history of philosophy.
I don't agree. It's a style that overlaps other approaches to philosophy.
Please don't make stuff up about me.
I'm not making stuff up. You said earlier that you didn't like it in comparison with other methods/schools earlier. I am saying to make the distinctions clear, it is good to compare and contrast with other methods.
If it's a style, what makes it distinct? What would NOT be that style? I can replace analytic with any synonym at this point- vague vs. precise (analytic) philosophy. But that is a shallow understanding of analytic philosophy if it isn't just a synonym for "whatever I find to be exacting and precise logical thinking". I have outlined three basic things that I think analytic philosophy takes into account. You can see my previous post if you'd like to discuss that. Otherwise, your vague answers to the question, don't seem to move the dialogue forward as to what analytic philosophy is.
For the most part I agree with Schop1 analysis from that previous post.
As an existentialist I try very hard to be conscious of dichotomization. And in the context of analytical philosophers and logical positivism, I don't take the approach as an exercise or need to renounce the
in order to become. In other words I don't repudiate analytical philosophy on an exclusive basis. It's just another tool as it were.
I think LP showed how practicing philosophy is a process. Unlike many other domains and processes, they generally all, have their limitations and proper contextual usage. It taught me that one must first analyze the question in order to discover what it means. And to discover what a question means is identical with discovering how one should go about answering it. That's at least one thing LP taught us.
However, examples of the glaring limitations relating to analytic's, would be statements such as:
1. We can never know the true nature of existence or being.
2. I can never know that you have a mind.
3. No men are free, but everyone is determined by his past.
4. Human beings are never satisfied.
5. Why do I behave like I do. My mind says one thing; my will says another.
6. All events must have a cause
Since those statements/ questions and their truth value cannot be empirically verified or calculated and deduced through formal analysis/logic, they are nonsensical to the LP/ analytical philosopher. And that of course raises at least one argument for its limited usage. It can't explain the nature of our existence, let alone our conscious existence.
And then in a wonderful (or terrible) stroke of irony, it was Russell who pretty much blew up that project almost as soon as it began by dismantling Frege's Basic Law V ('Russell's paradox'), and putting the whole thing into question. I almost want to say that analytic philosophy since then has been a kind of rear-guard action - a fantastically creative, interesting and, wide-ranging one - to hold true to the promise of what 'analytic philosophy' was meant to be while at the same time having been almost completely deprived of the means to do so, settling instead for a variegated patchwork of linguistic and logical analysis without any of it vying for the 'foundational' status that underlay the hopes of Frege and Russell.
(Quine tries to get around this by offshoring the foundational stuff to science - his 'naturalism' - insulating philosophy from the pressure of having to provide those foundations from 'within'; likewise the OLP crew who instead substituted out logic and science for 'ordinary language').
On this score, analytic philosophy had a brief existence after which it winked out spectacularly, and everything else is picking up the pieces. Of course calling analytic philosophy a rearguard action on a stillbirth won't quite make for good wiki material, but there you go. Alternatively, a nicer way to put it is that all of what currently travels under the name 'analytic philosophy' is already post-analytic philosophy.
Hey CtW!
Just to speak for myself, I only argued through the lens of LP because it was an intriguing comparison to other analytical approaches. For instance another distinction could be simple deductive reasoning ( a priori ) vs. Inductive reasoning (a posteriori). Or perhaps Modus Tollens ( not quite as analytical, from a ' formal logic ' point of view), or anything that Kant critiqued more or less... .
What are you thinking?
Only that philosophers within the analytic tradition like Austin, the later Wittgenstein, Wisdom and Strawson were, I think, very different from Russell and the logical positivists. They didn't think it necessary to formulate an idea language, nor did they think that metaphysics was nonsense, for example.
I think it's fair to say that generally, they thought ordinary language was quite sufficient, and that many of the traditional problems of philosophy were the result of the misuse of ordinary language. In that sense they were critical of philosophical claims and theories. I think they agreed that a particular method--involving a careful analysis of the use of language--was essential to addressing philosophical problems and claims, and felt that many of those problems would dissolve under close analysis. Wittgenstein spoke of philosophy as the process of showing the fly the way out of the fly bottle, and freeing ourselves from the bewitchment of language, or words to that effect.
It's a point of view which probably didn't strike "continental philosophers" as anymore sympathetic or agreeable than logical positivism, but it is different, and I think it must be taken into account in considering the question "what is analytic philosophy?"
Mozart is, idn, Newtonian calculus??.
A wiki project would be a lot of fun- but I just plum don't have enough expertise in this area to offer any edits (my previous post was unadulterated late-night bluster.) I agree with the rest of what you've said. for sure.
Here's the first paragraph from the history section:
You do not need to be an expert on Analytic Philosophy to improve on that second sentence!
Go on, have a go!
Reminds me of this gem:. "Backwards ran the sentences until reeled the mind."
I thought this was appropriate :rofl:
http://existentialcomics.com/
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/342
Also
Thanks!
If I tried to give a unified definition, I'd say it's the philosophical movement whose outgrowths roughly mirrored the various personality traits of G E Moore, much in the way Hellenistic philosophy was the movement whose outgrowths roughly mirrors the various personality traits of Socrates.
That stayed on until ~1968, at which point, the 'new analytic philosophy' occurred, which is still going on now – this really has no unifying features, but is more just a cultural zeitgeist, employing a bunch of roughly commensurate formal tools, journals, vocabulary, and the English language.
The hidden text when you hover over it says:
"Continental philosophers: Replacing words with math symbols doesn't make it clear, replacing words with new words that I just made up makes things clear." :rofl:
He's got them both dead on.