I would happily have said "dissolution" instead of "study".

But often the fly enjoys being in the bottle.

I share the positivist view that there is something 'wrong' with philosophy, that the questions it asks are somehow confused. Philosophy therefore can't be addressed on philosophical terms — Snakes Alive

Can you give an example of what you mean.

Its particularly true of child development issues. You have to know when to stop asking the child to further define their issues, and simply accept the rough sketch. In my experience, it usually much earlier than many psychologists seem to think. — Pseudonym

This seems, although I'm not sure, to go along with Wittgenstein's foundational ideas, or what appear to be foundational ideas.

The great joy I had from PI was due to reading it as a set of tools more than for the content. Consider, for instance, "Don't think, but look" from ⎰66. It's just brilliant - as in, it illuminates what goes wrong in so much philosophical thinking.

The vast majority of philosophical problems derive from grammatical muddles; here I am using "grammar" in the broad sense of the structure of language and language games. Indeed I am tempted to say if it's not a grammatical problem, it's not a philosophical problem - it belongs to some other field.; That is, it is tempting to posit that philosophy is exactly the study of confusions of language. — Banno

Your post is the kind of post I'm looking for, i.e., the ideas that you gleaned from Wittgenstein. Some of you may have a different perspective, so it doesn't have to relate to Wittgenstein.

I'm not necessarily looking for debate, but having a debate about what's said is part of the process. I'm looking for your perspective in relation to philosophy of language, and it doesn't need to be from Wittgenstein's perspective.

Getting Banno to write more than a sentence or two is an achievement in itself. Maybe I should close the thread.

Indeed; Philosophy of Language is, in the end, the whole of philosophy. — Banno

Yes, this is why I think philosophy of language is so important, and this seems to me to be a very important discovery about the philosophy of language. Maybe one can debate the idea that every philosophical problem is a language problem. I know I did leave open the idea that not every philosophical problem is a language problem, but in a sense it is.

Getting Banno to write more than a sentence or two is an achievement in itself. Maybe I should close the thread. — Sam26

Indeed; your work here is done.

He is, if you like, a struggling Christian in various stages of retreat and denial. — Snakes Alive

This doesn't seem to fit the Wittgenstein I know, although I can see how you might think this from some of what he said. Wittgenstein definitely believed in the mystical, and he admired the writings of some Christians, like Kierkegaard.

Philosophy of Language is, in the end, the whole of philosophy. — Banno

No, just no. That's wrong.

...unless some philosophy of language is philosophy of mind...

Profesional philosophers have moved on, it seems; but then, they have to do something in order to convince others to pay them.

You might think so. Should we argue over that here, or in another thread?

How to proceed?

How to proceed? — Banno

I guess leave it up to Sam.

Nice post, I'm always looking for ways to debunk my own ideas. It's so easy to get into a rut about a particular way of thinking, i.e., it's easy to get tunnel vision. It would be interesting to hear more of this. There are parts of this that I would take issue with, but it does seem interesting.

Pretty sure I've read it somewhere, and since I don't read Greek, so there must be a translation...

Also, I wonder what the best way to proceed would be. In the old forum, there were official debates. Not that it needs to that exact format. What would we hope to accomplish?

You, and those who agree with you, would explain and attempt to show how the philosophy of language encompasses all of philosophy.

Those of us who disagree would attempt to show that it doesn't. Assuming "philosophy of language" is defined in a definitive matter that means something more than just philosophy. IOW, that philosophy is actually the philosophy of language for any domain being discussed that falls under philosophy.

I'm wondering how much we can agree on within the scope of philosophy of language. I'm trying to take this thread in a different direction from the typical threads. I'm trying to be a bit more open-minded and not as combative, but it's difficult to do. I guess I'm looking for wisdom from those of you who spend a lot of time thinking.

I'm not at all averse to more formal debates, if you like that sort of thing. The topic would need clarification.

I'm not prepared for a formal debate. It's just that those debates seemed to be well structured, and this sort of topic has the chance of being all over the place, since it attempts to cover the entire reach of philosophy.

...and interjections from others that detract from the flow of the argument. Yep.

Im wondering how much we can agree on within the scope of philosophy of language. — Sam26

Preliminary: what is meant by "philosophy of language" and how would it be understood to cover all of philosophy?

Could there be teams of several people that take turns replying? Like three people strongly for and three strongly against or something?

unless some philosophy of language is philosophy of mind...

Profesional philosophers have moved on, it seems; but then, they have to do something in order to convince others to pay them. — Banno

Language seems foundational in some sense to philosophy, as per StreetlightX's comment, but then moves on as we learn to use it in these other subject areas.

I'm not prepared for a formal debate. It's just that those debates seemed to be well structured, and this sort of topic has the chance of being all over the place, since it attempts to cover the entire reach of philosophy. — Marchesk

Ya, this is a rather broad topic, but don't hold back.

Language seems foundational in some sense to philosophy — Sam26

My knee jerk reaction against Banno's claim is that it sounds like getting clear on how language is misused to create philosophical problems will either dissolve all those problems, or clear them up in preparation for some other domain like science to take over.

Which would mean that philosophy is a mistake.

Hm. Philosophy of language or linguistic philosophy. Perhaps we have started out with an issue of ambiguity. I do tend to use "philosophy of language" when strictly I mean "linguistic philosophy"; but then, it was the philosophy of language that led to my adopting linguistic philosophy as a srt of default position.

added:

Yes, it might well be.

Perhaps. My memory is not as good as I remember it to be.

Yes, it might well be. — Banno

You realize that's a really, really strong claim, right? It's certainly worth discussing.

Hm. Philosophy of language or linguistic philosophy. Perhaps we have started out with an issue of ambiguity. I do tend to use "philosophy of language" when strictly I mean "linguistic philosophy"; but then, it was the philosophy of language that led to my adopting linguistic philosophy as a srt of default position. — Banno

When I talk about philosophy of language I'm referring to a Wittgensteinian process, for the most part. Although I sometimes use linguistics to refer to some of the same things, strictly speaking linguistic philosophy is much different.

From the SEP...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/

"Philosophy of linguistics is the philosophy of science as applied to linguistics. This differentiates it sharply from the philosophy of language, traditionally concerned with matters of meaning and reference.

"As with the philosophy of other special sciences, there are general topics relating to matters like methodology and explanation (e.g., the status of statistical explanations in psychology and sociology, or the physics-chemistry relation in philosophy of chemistry), and more specific philosophical issues that come up in the special science at issue (simultaneity for philosophy of physics; individuation of species and ecosystems for the philosophy of biology). General topics of the first type in the philosophy of linguistics include:

"What the subject matter is,
What the theoretical goals are,
What form theories should take, and
What counts as data.
Specific topics include issues in language learnability, language change, the competence-performance distinction, and the expressive power of linguistic theories.

"There are also topics that fall on the borderline between philosophy of language and philosophy of linguistics: of “linguistic relativity” (see the supplement on the linguistic relativity hypothesis in the Summer 2015 archived version of the entry on relativism), language vs. idiolect, speech acts (including the distinction between locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts), the language of thought, implicature, and the semantics of mental states (see the entries on analysis, semantic compositionality, mental representation, pragmatics, and defaults in semantics and pragmatics). In these cases it is often the kind of answer given and not the inherent nature of the topic itself that determines the classification. Topics that we consider to be more in the philosophy of language than the philosophy of linguistics include intensional contexts, direct reference, and empty names (see the entries on propositional attitude reports, intensional logic, rigid designators, reference, and descriptions)."

That is to say, it describes W.'s method of philosophising as a picture which holds captive its practitioners, as a condition (theoriophobia) which requires therapy! It is said, or at least implied, by its proponents, that someone can be immersed in W.'s method of linguistic analysis only through a volitional switch, which takes place once we have seen and understood what the method shows us. This, of course, is something Virvidakis is sarcastic about. — Πετροκότσυφας

Maybe you could expand a bit on this, and on any of the comments made in that post.

Ah. Linguistic Philosophy differs in being the view that philosophy is best done by linguistic analysis. So it is not philosophy of linguistics.

It may now be an archaic term; if so, I suggest that is because it has been so widely accepted that by now doing philosophy by linguistic analysis is pretty much ubiquitous.