I'm not sure I appreciate words being put in my mouth (and my options prescribed to me) when I have already spoken, as if they are not taken seriously...
So, we are going to ignore the entire history of the problem of other minds, and start fresh. To say, we do not need to account for the past in order ...
That is literally an example of doing Ordinary Language Philosophy . So let's look and see. The next step after this is that, because of the possibili...
My crap job of anticipating how philosphers would need to be warned about the misconceptions of OLP. That everyone looks for a weak point to character...
Although a lot of traditional OLP takes it as solving skepticism (or other philosophical problems), I admire Stanley Cavell's reading of the nuance th...
One "uncommon" use is when philosophy stripes concepts of the criteria that account for their ordinary uses (possible senses) and significance (why th...
I appreciate the responses and thank you for helping me see the crossed-wires and misconceptions (and I wish I was better at addressing those). Before...
"Properly" speaking....... Was I speaking... Improperly? This reminds me of Witt's (and Cavell's) examination of philosophy's obsession with knowing w...
Solid question. The one on Witt might allow you to see him in a larger context, and the other one I thought you might just enjoy as a good defense/exa...
Well, clearly I suck at explaining things--to the examples!! (I forgot actually that's the whole gig.) So the "dialogue" we would have is coming up wi...
I believe Austin's point is the richness of what we ordinarily mean by what we say is the distinctions between one concept and another that are imbedd...
I'll let the idea drop that the conflict, between what we ordinarily mean by what we say and what we'd like to mean philosophically, has not been happ...
This is a lot, and, as Cavell says in the Abbrogation of Voice (the reading of Derrida reading Austin I mentioned), not much touches. I will only atte...
My understanding is that Derrida confuses Austin as excluding the frailty of our concepts, but Austin was only setting it aside in the essay Derrida r...
Yes, of course (poorly said). What I meant is that Moore ends up believing that he has solved skepticism, or shown it to be absurd, or incapable of be...
Again, not about the "use" of language--especially whether it is used "well" or "poorly". The idea of "normative" is not the goal at all; OLP does not...
What I meant to say I guess was questions not answered (directly--"Imagine..." "Why do we wish to say..."; and open-ended claims (to the Grammar of so...
No, just brought out into the open, applied to various contexts (even new ones). Witt talks about how you know how to walk, but it's hard to explain. ...
I put Austin in the analytic tradition squarely against positivism/representationalism--showing the variety of ways in which statements can have ratio...
Cavell makes an argument that the "style" of the Investigations (confession, the Interlocutor, the obfuscation) is as much a part of the method. Not t...
I concede, begrudgingly, just to stop talking about him (and let's not take up Socrates, etc. when we are still stuck on OLP being merely normal langu...
Again, Derrida is jumping to conclusions maybe for his own reasons (if context is closed than the only option is difference?). A context only needs to...
Creating a context that shows us the ordinary criteria for a concept, not (regular, common) words We're not talking about ordinary "usage" (see above)...
I just read this last night. I would say taking Nietzsche as substituting truth for force (presumably, the will to power), is to miss his desire to in...
Again, it's not that philosophy is "misusing" language, and OLP is arguing that it is using it correctly. The "rigor" of OLP is its attention to its e...
Trying to unpack this a little, OLP is not trying to solve (all) the "problems" philosophy has (skepticism, moral disagreement, etc.), but, yes, one p...
One point of OLP is that we are able to individually examine our concepts because they each have their own ways of being meaningful, so that one over-...
Well you'll be happy to read Sense and Sensibilia. Austin basically just punches him in the face repeatedly. Logical positivism and the principal that...
All of us at OLP deeply apologize for Moore's over-enthusiasm. Austin also did not take skepticism seriously enough, among other fallouts he just brus...
Nietzsche brought a historical (in that sense, a contextual) view to morality. He was investigating the metaphysical version of morals (deontology) an...
Ah, the dangers of categorization (I suppose Hume is more of a skeptic). And my knowledge of Derrida is not even being able to get through his attempt...
I appreciate your resolve, but I believe I have addressed these concerns already. My point in all this was to shed light on the possibility of discuss...
Well, I could only make the case for the broader analytical implications because that's what I'm trained in. And, though Stanley Cavell is both a phil...
As this is not directed at me, it feels odd to cast in, but I believe focusing on my (Witt's) conjecture/speculation as to the motivation to hang on t...
I loved that book in school, and I enjoyed reading this; it made me think of the ways in which I understand these same (similar) things now. The appro...
Well, I am not making a claim to "objectivity"--only rationality--as Kant's term is an out-dated concept (as is "subjectivity"--instead of the persona...
I am doing my best here to understand what you are saying (perhaps not well) but also, I'm not sure how you think this needs to negate my contention a...
I am notifying the following participants (and others that may have an interest), in the hope of rounding out @"darthbarracuda" 's PO with any other c...
I can only say for sure that although the artist may understand the workings of the form as well or better than the critic, I would say the critic und...
I get what you're saying; Kant can be esoteric. I usually work from ordinary language (its ordinary criteria), but, if you let go of the personal use ...
Yes, Kant's judgement of the Beautiful is rational, and universal, in a sense. And I wanted to make clear that, according to Kant, any "object" can be...
Well, I deeply apologize; I got an email that I thought was you replying to my post, but it was, instead, you replying to someone else's (a little new...
I agree that "higher-order thinking skills" embetters us and our society, not only with knowledge of the criteria of our morals, but also our understa...
Method is basically what I am talking about, though I would say that we do gain something. "Knowledge" is a loaded word in ethics, but we do gain insi...
I agree if this is to say not everything about the aesthetic can by captured in critique (or even words), i.e., the Sublime, but I think it's a scapeg...
It's not that there needed to be a reason; just some specificity--which you have now provided. I did suggest reviewing Kant's description of the Pleas...
I concede that aesthetic rationality is not "objective" (another post I think to argue that standard is based on Kant's desire to empower some judgmen...
I'm not quite sure it's unfair (or even rude) to say you're going to have to try harder. First, you say that you "don't understand any of that", which...
Comments