Analytic and Linguistic Philosophy

I
INTRODUCTION
Analytic and Linguistic Philosophy, 20th-centu y philosophical !o"e!ent, do!inant in # itain and the United $tates since %o ld %a II, that ai!s to cla i&y language and analy'e the concepts e(p essed in it) The !o"e!ent has *een gi"en a "a iety o& designations, including linguistic analysis, logical e!pi icis!, logical positi"is!, Ca!* idge analysis, and +O(&o d philosophy), The last t-o la*els a e de i"ed & o! the uni"e sities in .ngland -he e this philosophical !ethod has *een pa ticula ly in&luential) Although no speci&ic doct ines o tenets a e accepted *y the !o"e!ent as a -hole, analytic and linguistic philosophe s ag ee that the p ope acti"ity o& philosophy is cla i&ying language, o , as so!e p e&e , cla i&ying concepts) The ai! o& this acti"ity is to settle philosophical disputes and esol"e philosophical p o*le!s, -hich, it is a gued, o iginate in linguistic con&usion)

II

APPROAC/.$

A conside a*le di"e sity o& "ie-s e(ists a!ong analytic and linguistic philosophe s ega ding the natu e o& conceptual o linguistic analysis) $o!e ha"e *een p i!a ily conce ned -ith cla i&ying the !eaning o& speci&ic -o ds o ph ases as an essential step in !a0ing philosophical asse tions clea and una!*iguous) Othe s ha"e *een !o e conce ned -ith dete !ining the gene al conditions that !ust *e !et &o any linguistic utte ance to *e !eaning&ul1 thei intent is to esta*lish a c ite ion that -ill distinguish *et-een !eaning&ul and nonsensical sentences) $till othe analysts ha"e *een inte ested in c eating &o !al, sy!*olic languages that a e !athe!atical in natu e) Thei clai! is that philosophical p o*le!s can *e !o e e&&ecti"ely dealt -ith once they a e &o !ulated in a igo ous logical language) #y cont ast, !any philosophe s associated -ith the !o"e!ent ha"e &ocused on the analysis o& o dina y, o natu al, language) Di&&iculties a ise -hen concepts such as ti!e and & eedo!, &o e(a!ple, a e conside ed apa t & o! the linguistic conte(t in -hich they no !ally appea ) Attention to language as it is o dina ily used is the 0ey, it is a gued, to esol"ing !any philosophical pu''les)

III

.ARL2 /I$TOR2

Linguistic analysis as a !ethod o& philosophy is as old as the 3 ee0s) $e"e al o& the dialogues o& Plato, &o e(a!ple, a e speci&ically conce ned -ith cla i&ying te !s and concepts) Ne"e theless, this style o& philosophi'ing has ecei"ed d a!atically ene-ed e!phasis in the 20th centu y) In&luenced *y the ea lie # itish e!pi ical t adition o& 4ohn Loc0e, 3eo ge #e 0eley, Da"id /u!e, and 4ohn $tua t 5ill and *y the - itings o& the 3e !an !athe!atician and philosophe 3ottlo* 6 ege, the 20th-centu y .nglish philosophe s 3) .) 5oo e and #e t and Russell *eca!e the &ounde s o& this conte!po a y analytic and linguistic t end) As students togethe at the Uni"e sity o& Ca!* idge, 5oo e and Russell e7ected /egelian idealis!, pa ticula ly as it -as e&lected in the -o 0 o& the .nglish !etaphysician 6) /) # adley, -ho held that nothing is co!pletely eal e(cept the A*solute) In thei opposition to idealis! and in thei co!!it!ent to the "ie-

that ca e&ul attention to language is c ucial in philosophical in8ui y, they set the !ood and style o& philosophi'ing &o !uch o& the 20th centu y .nglish-spea0ing -o ld) 6o 5oo e, philosophy -as &i st and &o e!ost analysis) The philosophical tas0 in"ol"es cla i&ying pu''ling p opositions o concepts *y indicating less pu''ling p opositions o concepts to -hich the o iginals a e held to *e logically e8ui"alent) Once this tas0 has *een co!pleted, the t uth o &alsity o& p o*le!atic philosophical asse tions can *e dete !ined !o e ade8uately) 5oo e -as noted &o his ca e&ul analyses o& such pu''ling philosophical clai!s as +ti!e is un eal,, analyses that then aided in dete !ining the t uth o& such asse tions) Russell, st ongly in&luenced *y the p ecision o& !athe!atics, -as conce ned -ith de"eloping an ideal logical language that -ould accu ately e&lect the natu e o& the -o ld) Co!ple( p opositions, Russell !aintained, can *e esol"ed into thei si!plest co!ponents, -hich he called ato!ic p opositions) These p opositions e&e to ato!ic &acts, the ulti!ate constituents o& the uni"e se) The !etaphysical "ie- *ased on this logical analysis o& language and the insistence that !eaning&ul p opositions !ust co espond to &acts constitute -hat Russell called logical ato!is!) /is inte est in the st uctu e o& language also led hi! to distinguish *et-een the g a!!atical &o ! o& a p oposition and its logical &o !) The state!ents +4ohn is good, and +4ohn is tall, ha"e the sa!e g a!!atical &o ! *ut di&&e ent logical &o !s) 6ailu e to ecogni'e this -ould lead one to t eat the p ope ty +goodness, as i& it -e e a cha acte istic o& 4ohn in the sa!e -ay that the p ope ty +tallness, is a cha acte istic o& 4ohn) $uch &ailu e esults in philosophical con&usion)

I9

%ITT3.N$T.IN AND T/. LO3ICAL PO$ITI9I$T$

Russell:s -o 0 in !athe!atics att acted to Ca!* idge the Aust ian philosophe Lud-ig %ittgenstein, -ho *eca!e a cent al &igu e in the analytic and linguistic !o"e!ent) In his &i st !a7o -o 0, Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus ;<=2<1 t ans) <=22>, in -hich he &i st p esented his theo y o& language, %ittgenstein a gued that +all philosophy is a ?c iti8ue o& language:, and that +philosophy ai!s at the logical cla i&ication o& thoughts), The esults o& %ittgenstein:s analysis ese!*led Russell:s logical ato!is!) The -o ld, he a gued, is ulti!ately co!posed o& si!ple &acts, -hich it is the pu pose o& language to pictu e) To *e !eaning&ul, state!ents a*out the -o ld !ust *e educi*le to linguistic utte ances that ha"e a st uctu e si!ila to the si!ple &acts pictu ed) In this ea ly %ittgensteinian analysis, only p opositions that pictu e &acts@the p opositions o& science@a e conside ed &actually !eaning&ul) 5etaphysical, theological, and ethical sentences -e e 7udged to *e &actually !eaningless) In&luenced *y Russell, %ittgenstein, . nst 5ach, and othe s, a g oup o& philosophe s and !athe!aticians in 9ienna in the <=20s initiated the !o"e!ent 0no-n as logical positi"is! ;see Positi"is!>) Led *y 5o it' $chlic0 and Rudol& Ca nap, the 9ienna Ci cle initiated one o& the !ost i!po tant chapte s in the histo y o& analytic and linguistic philosophy) Acco ding to the positi"ists, the tas0 o& philosophy is the cla i&ication o& !eaning, not the disco"e y o& ne- &acts ;the 7o* o& the scientists> o the const uction o& co!p ehensi"e accounts o& eality ;the !isguided pu suit o& t aditional !etaphysics>) The positi"ists di"ided all !eaning&ul asse tions into t-o classesA analytic p opositions and e!pi ically "e i&ia*le ones) Analytic p opositions, -hich include the p opositions o& logic and !athe!atics, a e state!ents the t uth o &alsity o& -hich depend altogethe on the !eanings o& the te !s constituting the

state!ent) An e(a!ple -ould *e the p oposition +t-o plus t-o e8uals &ou ), The second class o& !eaning&ul p opositions includes all state!ents a*out the -o ld that can *e "e i&ied, at least in p inciple, *y sense e(pe ience) Indeed, the !eaning o& such p opositions is identi&ied -ith the e!pi ical !ethod o& thei "e i&ication) This "e i&ia*ility theo y o& !eaning, the positi"ists concluded, -ould de!onst ate that scienti&ic state!ents a e legiti!ate &actual clai!s and that !etaphysical, eligious, and ethical sentences a e &actually e!pty) The ideas o& logical positi"is! -e e !ade popula in .ngland *y the pu*lication o& A) 4) Aye :s Language, Truth and Logic in <=BC) The positi"ists: "e i&ia*ility theo y o& !eaning ca!e unde intense c iticis! *y philosophe s such as the Aust ian-*o n # itish philosophe Da l Poppe ) ."entually this na o- theo y o& !eaning yielded to a * oade unde standing o& the natu e o& language) Again, an in&luential &igu e -as %ittgenstein) Repudiating !any o& his ea lie conclusions in the Tractatus, he initiated a ne- line o& thought cul!inating in his posthu!ously pu*lished Philosophical Investigations ;<=EB1 t ans) <=EB>) In this -o 0, %ittgenstein a gued that once attention is di ected to the -ay language is actually used in o dina y discou se, the "a iety and &le(i*ility o& language *eco!e clea ) P opositions do !uch !o e than si!ply pictu e &acts) This ecognition led to %ittgenstein:s in&luential concept o& language ga!es) The scientist, the poet, and the theologian, &o e(a!ple, a e in"ol"ed in di&&e ent language ga!es) 5o eo"e , the !eaning o& a p oposition !ust *e unde stood in its conte(t, that is, in te !s o& the ules o& the language ga!e o& -hich that p oposition is a pa t) Philosophy, concluded %ittgenstein, is an atte!pt to esol"e p o*le!s that a ise as the esult o& linguistic con&usion, and the 0ey to the esolution o& such p o*le!s is o dina y language analysis and the p ope use o& language)

R.C.NT D.9.LOP5.NT$

Additional cont i*utions -ithin the analytic and linguistic !o"e!ent include the -o 0 o& the # itish philosophe s 3il*e t Ryle, 4ohn Austin, and P) 6) $t a-son and the A!e ican philosophe %) 9) Fuine) Acco ding to Ryle, the tas0 o& philosophy is to estate +syste!atically !isleading e(p essions, in &o !s that a e logically !o e accu ate) /e -as pa ticula ly conce ned -ith state!ents the g a!!atical &o ! o& -hich suggests the e(istence o& none(istent o*7ects) 6o e(a!ple, Ryle is *est 0no-n &o his analysis o& !entalistic language, language that !isleadingly suggests that the !ind is an entity in the sa!e -ay as the *ody) Austin !aintained that one o& the !ost & uit&ul sta ting points &o philosophical in8ui y is attention to the e(t e!ely &ine distinctions d a-n in o dina y language) /is analysis o& language e"entually led to a gene al theo y o& speech acts, that is, to a desc iption o& the "a iety o& acti"ities that an indi"idual !ay *e pe &o !ing -hen so!ething is utte ed) $t a-son is 0no-n &o his analysis o& the elationship *et-een &o !al logic and o dina y language) The co!ple(ity o& the latte , he a gued, is inade8uately ep esented *y &o !al logic) A "a iety o& analytic tools, the e&o e, is needed in addition to logic in analy'ing o dina y language)

Fuine discussed the elationship *et-een language and ontology) /e a gued that language syste!s tend to co!!it thei use s to the e(istence o& ce tain things) 6o Fuine, the 7usti&ication &o spea0ing one -ay athe than anothe is a tho oughly p ag!atic one) The co!!it!ent to language analysis as a -ay o& pu suing philosophy has continued as a signi&icant conte!po a y di!ension in philosophy) A di"ision also continues to e(ist *et-een those -ho p e&e to -o 0 -ith the p ecision and igo o& sy!*olic logical syste!s and those -ho p e&e to analy'e o dina y language) Although &e- conte!po a y philosophe s !aintain that all philosophical p o*le!s a e linguistic, the "iecontinues to *e -idely held that attention to the logical st uctu e o& language and to ho- language is used in e"e yday discou se can o&ten aid in esol"ing philosophical p o*le!s)

Cont i*uted #yA Ro*e t 5) #ai d Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2004. G <==B-200B 5ic oso&t Co po ation) All ights ese "ed)