OLP is simply conservatively limiting what can be said philosophically, or dismissing philosophy with “common sense”. — Antony Nickles
skepticism/moral relativism (Descartes, Derrida); — Antony Nickles
you know who you are — Wayfarer
The only thing I would quibble with here is your characterization of Derrida as a relativist and/or a skeptic. — Joshs
I'm puzzled by your inclusion of the Great Moustache, — Banno
The general theme was that ordinary language was both a blessing and a curse; on one side it brought clarity and perspective (Austin); on the other, many if not all philosophical problems derive from ordinary language's ambiguous structure (Wittgenstein). — Banno
whatever your philosophical inclination, you will eventually have to make a place for ordinary language. — Banno
Neat Austin references in the OP, by the way - I wonder who saw them. — Banno
I had taken one of the starting-points for this approach to be Moore's 'Refutation of Idealism', and the subsequent tendency to reduce philosophy to what can always be rendered in crisp propositions. — Wayfarer
one consequence often seems to me to try and cast every idea in philosophy in terms of what can easily be spoken or written, leaving aside the larger issue that philosophy often has to plumb difficult questions about the limits of language or of reason and the nature of truth. — Wayfarer
Ayer's Truth, Language, and Logic. — Antony Nickles
[A.J Ayer's book] was a book I loved to hate — Wayfarer
Habermas says that our communicative actions derive from a massively shared lifeworld (lebenswelt). This is a background set of assumptions so fundamental that they resist analysis. His observations on specialized languages are that the value of special theoretical domains can only be measured to the extent that they manage to re-integrate themselves into the universal community. Therefore, they must eventually find a way to communicate in everyday language. In fact, Habermas says that everyday language is the best meta-language. I'd agree. — Pantagruel
But I'm puzzled by your inclusion of the Great Moustache, since I find him relatively obscure. — Banno
Nietzsche with his hyperbolic claims, often ending in exclamation points, mixed with rhetorical questions, and brimming with certainty, is more a philosophical rabble-rouser than physician. — Ciceronianus the White
I thought OLP was all about what words actually mean in everyday use. As opposed to artificially constructed types of contexts which create the problems which they then try to solve. — Pantagruel
I must join Banno and express my surprise that you claim Frantic Freddie Nietzsche exemplifies OLP. — Ciceronianus the White
my knowledge of Derrida is not even being able to get through his attempt to read Austin (in Signature Event Context); — Antony Nickles
I look on OLP and analytic and linguistic philosophy (largely) as being a kind of tonic, serving to restore rigor to philosophical thought by disposing of faux problems arising from misuse of language... serving to purge philosophy of its extravagance. — Ciceronianus the White
Nietzsche with his hyperbolic claims, often ending in exclamation points, mixed with rhetorical questions, and brimming with certainty, is more a philosophical rabble-rouser than physician. — Ciceronianus the White
Including Nietzsche renders the list too irregular - a list of one's favourites, not a list of philosophers with a common approach. — Banno
..but it's not style that counts here; it's method. — Banno
From Derrida: “Austin was obliged to free the analysis of the performative from the authority of the truth value, from the true/false opposition, at least in its classical form, and to substitute for it at times the value of force, of difference of force (illocutionary or perlocutionary force). In this line of thought, which is nothing less than Nietzschean, this in particular strikes me as moving in the direction of Nietzsche himself, who often acknowledged a certain affinity for a vein of English thought.” — Joshs
So what is ordinary then? — Pantagruel
So does ordinary usage mean resolving more expansive universes of discourse down to less expansive, but therefore more universal, ones? — Pantagruel
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.