The "linguistic turn" is basically meaningless. It's a historical construct. Ditto "existentialism," "continental philosophy," "analytic philosophy," and so on. No one really agrees on what these terms mean, and we shouldn't get hung up on them any more than "postmodern" or "post-World War II."
Thinking is what's called for these days -- and that doesn't end. What we need is different kind of thinking, which is defined by the questions being asked. The questions being asked these days should be in response to our current place in time, our historical situation. To ask "what next?" is a good question, but it could have been asked in any period in history, even during what's now labeled the "linguistic turn." — Xtrix
what comes after the linguistic turn? — Shawn
A term invented after the fact for an approach to philosophy that began with critiques of the obscure language of the Hegelian thinking of the 19th Century and the discursive narratives that it produced, seeking a return to analysis. The critics held that philosophy should focus on being clear and coherent. There were two threads to the linguistic turn. One was formal, seeking to use the newly developed logic of propositional calculus to set philosophical issues out clearly. The other used natural languages such as English, seeking to clarify issues of ambiguity by an analysis of the complexity of words.
It's roughly congruent with analytic philosophy. — Banno
If we are just loads of chemicals grouped together through a random procces, then everything we experience may well be wrong. How do we know that our logical thoughts would actually show any truth in this universe? The answer, if we are just a bunch of chemicals, is that we can’t. Using this logic, science is just an illusion, so is logic. However, we have used science and logic to come to these conclusions, which becomes a paradox. — Franz Liszt
The OP is misguided to say that the linguistic turn is now over; it would be better to say that the linguistic turn is now so ubiquitous that it goes unnoticed. — Banno
A term invented after the fact for an approach to philosophy that began with critiques of the obscure language of the Hegelian thinking of the 19th Century and the discursive narratives that it produced, seeking a return to analysis. The critics held that philosophy should focus on being clear and coherent. There were two threads to the linguistic turn. One was formal, seeking to use the newly developed logic of propositional calculus to set philosophical issues out clearly. The other used natural languages such as English, seeking to clarify issues of ambiguity by an analysis of the complexity of words.
It's roughly congruent with analytic philosophy. — Banno
Considerations such as yours may be behind Wittgenstein's enlarged notion of "grammar". Both formal and natural languages - propositional logic and English, for example - are languages.
Early formal linguistic philosophy sort to render the vagaries of English into propositional form. This is the project of Principia Mathematica and Tractatus logico-philosophicus. It proved to be impossible, but along the way some extraordinary thigns were discovered.
Later formal linguistic philosophy accepted the place of natural languages, but sort to clarify the grammar buy presenting coherent and consistent translations in formal language. T-sentences and possible world semantics are examples of this.
The rough idea is that formal grammars can help us to recognise confusions in our common natural language - like your "I'm a man and I'm not a man".
The various tools of linguistic philosophy now fill the tool bag of most philosophers; at least the good ones. The OP is misguided to say that the linguistic turn is now over; it would be better to say that the linguistic turn is now so ubiquitous that it goes unnoticed — Banno
That said, it can't be denied that logic has its own language consisting of symbols with very precise meanings and instructions on how to use them correctly to cut through all the logically extraneous linguistic elements of discourse and zero in on an argument if there is one. However I still have misgivings about treating logic as just another language - there's more to it than mere words and rules on how to manipulate those words. — TheMadFool
Language is, at the end of the day, just a collection of words and a set of rules — TheMadFool
Language is, at the end of the day, just a collection of words and a set of rules
— TheMadFool
...which is exactly what logic is, also.
And mathematics too, for that matter. — Banno
in logic, "words" are entire propositions and the "set of rules" are those that have a bearing on how propositions are related to each other with the emphasis on how the truth/falsity of one or more propositions impact the truth/falsity of another proposition. — TheMadFool
If we are just loads of chemicals grouped together through a random procces, then everything we experience may well be wrong.
How do we know that our logical thoughts would actually show any truth in this universe?
Well, yes, we can, since if the premises are true so will the consequences be true.The answer, if we are just a bunch of chemicals, is that we can’t.
Again, this does not follow; adn indeed, if your logic leads you to rejecting logic, you are doing it wrong.Using this logic, science is just an illusion, so is logic.
However, we have used science and logic to come to these conclusions, which becomes a paradox.
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.