This
is a short and personal take on analytic philosophy. Therefore it
generalises quite a lot and offers a very broad outline on matters.
The
way analytic philosophy is defined in the following is by seeing how
it differs to other kinds of philosophy. Though again, as ever,
there'll be many exceptions to the points made.
*****************************
It's
sometimes somewhat frustrating to hear what many other people think
philosophy is.
For
example, one man I once spoke to said she thought philosophy to be
far too “mystical” and “airy-fairy” for her otherwise quite
scientific mind.
Another
person believed that Nostradamus was a philosopher and thus that
philosophy is about all things prophetic and esoteric.
But
most common of all, many laypersons believe that philosophy is an
attempt to explain “the
meaning of life” or “life’s
ultimate purpose”.
Very
few analytic philosophers have concerned themselves with such areas
and questions. Virtually no 20th century philosopher saw himself in
this mould. Perhaps only the philosophical Stoics
took the meaning (or purpose) of life to be the prime object or
subject of philosophy (as also with the Epicureans).
To some extent both Plato and Aristotle also concerned themselves
with these issues. However, both branched out into many other areas.
No
doubt the layperson would be very suspicious of both the style and
content of much contemporary analytic philosophy. The use of logic
alone (along with the symbolism) would surely surprise the kind of
layperson who takes the question ‘What is the meaning of life?’
to be philosophy’s ultimate question. Similarly, analytic
philosophy’s close relation to science and mathematics would prove
enlightening. (Not least, the logical positivists, the naturalisers
of epistemology, ‘scientism’ or the subservience - if that’s
what it is - to physics, etc.)
Similarly,
contemporary philosophy no longer sees its primary role in terms of
the discovery of the fundamental nature of reality or of Man.
Such a pursuit - almost by nature - would render the philosopher an
old-fashioned “system-builder”
in the manner of, for example, Hegel.
Instead
analytic philosophers often adopt what Bertrand
Russell called a “piecemeal
approach” to philosophy. That is, only small problems
are tackled that don't bear strong relations to any larger
metaphysical issues/systems. It isn't the philosopher’s job, they
may think, to tie everything together into a philosophical system and
thus gain access to what the 19th century idealists called the
'Absolute’.
Analytic
philosophy is, well, analytic.
We
can also say that it is fundamentally atomist in nature even when the
philosopher concerned is a holist
of some description! That is, even though Russell’s ‘logical
atomism’ and sense-data
theories are no longer upheld in analytic philosophy (because of
the holistic realisation that such atomism couldn't be sustained or
justified in its old crudely quasi-scientific way), there's a sense
in which analytic philosophy is still atomistic in nature – or if
not atomistic, then, again, analytical. In other words, analytic
philosophy is rarely synthetical in the Continental manner. Even
holists (at least when it came to the philosophy of science) like
W.V.O.
Quine looked askance at,
for example, Hegel’s ostensibly extreme syntheticism or holism.
Holism, therefore, can still be endorsed and utilised within a
philosophical framework that's still, nevertheless, largely
analytical in nature. Indeed Quine’s logical and scientific biases
clearly make this the case.
Quine,
therefore, can be seen as the archetypal analytic philosophy. That
said, many other analytic philosophers had a problem with both his
ideas and his concentration on logic. This basically means that
analytic philosophy is very much a broad church. However, it's more
of a broad church when it comes to philosophical content than when it
comes to philosophical techniques/ways of arguing.
Finally, this piece on analytic philosophy is itself contextual, synthetic and (slightly) holistic. This simply goes to show how problematic many neat philosophical divisions really are.
Finally, this piece on analytic philosophy is itself contextual, synthetic and (slightly) holistic. This simply goes to show how problematic many neat philosophical divisions really are.
No comments:
Post a Comment