This is an extract of our Dummett Meaning As Use document, which we sell as part of our Wittgenstein Notes collection written by the top tier of University Of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Wittgenstein Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Michael Dummett - Truth and other enigmas Can Analytic Philosophy be Systematic, and Ought it to Be?
* primarily means demonstrating a system of thought etc; a positive or normative theory
* also means adhering to an accepted methodology Can analytic philosophy be systematic (in the first sense)?
* yes, according to many American analytic philosophers such as Quine,
# analytic philosophy is 'at least cognate with the natural sciences'
* no, according to the later Wittgenstein and Austin
# sciences aim to establish truths, whereas philosophy aims to clarify conceptual confusion; to replace a distorted vision with an undistorted one; to untangle
* 'to possess a concept is to be the master of a certain fragment of language', hence if we are to do philosophy, we must understand language
* e.g. we must make explicit the implicit rules and principles of language
* philosophy does not tell us anything about what 'is to be seen' (what exists?); once the tangle is unpicked, the philosopher's work is done Austin rejects system through a total reliance on the actual uses of words
* if we study uses of words well enough without paying attention to 'the problems', they will solve themselves
* this is an unattractive viewpoint these days (1975) Brief history of analytic philosophy
* analytic philosophy is a cluster of schools, less disparate now (1975) than it once was. There are three primary reasons for this:
# 1. acceptance of the primacy and importance of Frege as the first analytic philosopher
# 2. American philosophers now big in Britain
# 3. the focus of philosophy has moved from linguistic philosophy - which assumed understanding of language and used it as a means (e.g. Austin?) - to philosophy of language: the attempt to generate a theory of language Frege shifted the starting point in philosophy from epistemology to logic and language
* it is only through the analysis of language that we can analyse thought
# thoughts, as opposed to other mental objects, appear to be wholly communicable
# we can only clearly understand thought thought through language - attempting to penetrate to the naked essence of the thought will lead to confusion between the thought and the subjective accompaniments of thinking
# in other words, pure, clear thought is necessarily filtered through language. If we are to understand thought, we must necessarily understand language
* for Frege and Wittgenstein, understanding of language is necessary and sufficient in order to understand thought - i.e. with that understanding, philosophy is complete The linguistic schools of analytic philosophy quickly stopped making contributions to theories of language
* e.g. logical positivists used the principle of verification as a weapon, without ever clearly outlining the coherent/complete theory of meaning or philosophy of language from which
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Wittgenstein Notes.