I recognize this way of writing. There is an effort, even here in a work written for non-philosophers, to be quite precise in distinguishing the several different questions that may come to mind in talking about price gouging. Sandel intends to be rigorous, precise, careful. He's not talking about language and logic, but justice, and he is doing so in a way that owes much to the sort of care you can see at work in Austin's treatment of speech acts. — Srap Tasmaner
I see ordinary language philosophy as more a refutation of AP and its obsession with logical propositions and perfect T-languages. A return to sanity, in short. — Olivier5
did they find out in the end the solution to that little riddle, about whether that French king was bald or not? — Olivier5
you're trying to argue that logical precision is credited to Analytical Philosophy. Then what did we have in the world before this school came into existence? — JerseyFlight
did they find out in the end the solution to that little riddle, about whether that French king was bald or not? — Olivier5
That's like saying 'when studying music you find music theory but not mathematical logic'. So what? Not even so-called "analytical philosophers" confuse what they're getting up to with science (in contrast to the quasi-scientistic likes of e.g. Leibniz, Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Husserl, Cassirer, Saussure, Lévi-Strauss, Althusser et al do, respectively, with their 'concept-systems') as you insinuate they inadequately do, Jersey, with that "textbook" remark. Apples and oranges - yeah, both are fruit - should not be compared, or one reduced to the other, if intellectual clarity in philosophizing via avoiding nonsense, etc, is what (I assume) you're after.Look up any textbook on Sociology, Psychology, Biology, you will not find Analytical Philosophy, but you will findthe scientific method. — JerseyFlight
Yeah, but they're "Idealisms" IFF their respective concepts (or methods) are reified; otherwise, as I understand the distinctionI need to make it clear, for me the distinction is not between Analytical Philosophy and Continental Philosophy, but these taken together in contrast to Dialectical Philosophy, or if you will, Idealism versus Materialism. — JerseyFlight
as complementaries they are compatible with both classical atomism and (varieties of) methodological materialism. To wit: dialectics (critique) versus dogmatics (ideology, apologetics); perennially: philosophy versus sophistry.
Alan Turing drew much between 1928 and 1933 from the work of the mathematical physicist and populariser A. S. Eddington, from J. von Neumann's account of the foundations of quantum mechanics, and then from Bertrand Russell's mathematical logic.
It is readily shown, using a ‘diagonal’ argument first used by Cantor and familiar from the discoveries of Russell and Gödel, that there can be no Turing machine with the property of deciding whether a description number is satisfactory or not.
Isaac Asimov once said that scientific discoveries begin not with "Eureka!" but "That's funny..." — Srap Tasmaner
Not to make too fine a point of philosophical history, but the Principia Mathematica, to which your quotes certainly refer, were authored by Whitehead and Russel, in that order on the cover. Russel was Whitehead's student. They both authored it, and Whitehead was in the lead.Bertrand Russell's mathematical logic. — Banno
At a fundamental level, philosophy is about the ambiguities of the human condition, which we try to clarify and disambiguate. So precision is indeed necessary, to the extent possible, and I appreciate that care. But human language is fundamentally ambiguous, and that's also a strength, not just a weakness. It's about being flexible. — Olivier5
But human language is fundamentally ambiguous, and that's also a strength, not just a weakness. It's about being flexible. — Olivier5
That sums it up for me. It's a narrow-minded use of philosophical talent, that is generally used as a posture rather than to do any actual productive work. — Olivier5
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.