Advertisement

Abstract

One increasingly finds in philosophical writings nowadays references to the differences which exist between phenomenology and linguistic analysis, and the difficulties of reconciling them. Even the journalist has taken a hand here: some years ago in the American magazine Time (7 January 1966) there appeared a ‘write-up’ of these two schools: philosophers belonging to the latter school were referred to as logicians, because of their interest in logic and language, whilst those belonging to the former were referred to as lotus-eaters, because of their concern with subjective experience. In such discussions phenomenology is often referred to as Continental philosophy, but it is far from being the dominant school on the Continent. And although linguistic analysis tends to be identified with British philosophy, there are still some philosophers in Britain who do not accept its main tenets.

Keywords

Ordinary Language Philosophical Problem Bodily Attribute Linguistic Analysis Bodily Continuity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Walter Kaufmann (ed.), Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre ( Cleveland and New York: Meridian Books, 1965 ) p. 51.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morton White (ed.), The Age of Analysis ( New York: Mentor Books, 1955 ) p. 242Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Quatrième Colloque de Royaumont, published as La Philosophie analytique (Paris, 1962).Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Charles Taylor, ‘Phenomenology and Linguistic Analysis’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society supp. vol. xxxln (1959) 107.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    J. L. Austin, ‘A plea for Excuses’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society LVII (1956–7) I1, reprinted in Philosophy and linguistics ed. Colin Lyas (London: Macmillan, 1971) pp. 79—loI.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    Eugene TeHeneppe, ‘The Life-World and the World of Ordinary Language’, in An Invitation to Phenomenology ed. James M. Edie (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1965) pp. 132–46.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    James M. Edie, ‘Recent Work in Phenomenology’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 12 (Apr. 1964) 125.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    Maurice Natanson, ‘Phenomenology and the Natural Attitude’, in Literature, Philosophy and the Social Sciences (The Hague: Martinus Nijhofl; 1962) pp. 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 15.
    Edmund Husserl, Ideas ( London: Allen & Unwin, 1967 ) p. 245.Google Scholar
  10. 23.
    In addition there is some evidence that conceptual knowledge is not necessarily linguistic. H. G. Furth, Thinking without Language (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press; London: Collier-Macmillan, 1966) has shown with large numbers of deaf children and adults that many advanced forms of thinking may show little impairment, even though the thinker has a minute vocabulary and syntax. This would seem to indicate that the models of thought and language set up by linguistic philosophers are not entirely in accord with the empirical evidence.Google Scholar
  11. 25.
    G. Ryle, ‘Phenomenology’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society supp. vol. xi (1932) 80.Google Scholar
  12. 30.
    Richard Rorty (ed.), The Linguistic Turn: Recent Essays in Philosophical Meihod (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967) 25b, Father H. L. Van Breda, ‘Discussion of Strawson’s “Analysis, Science and Metaphysics” ’, pp. 326–7.Google Scholar
  13. 32.
    A. J. Ayer, ‘Phenomenology and Linguistic Analysis’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supp. vol. (1959) 124.Google Scholar
  14. 33.
    L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. Anscombe (Oxford: Blackwell, 1953) sect. 124, p. 49e.Google Scholar
  15. 37.
    Stuart Spicker, ‘The “Philosophers into Europe” Conference’, Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 13 (Oct. 1970) 23; also pp. 199–200 below.Google Scholar
  16. 41.
    Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness trans. Hazel E. Barnes (New York: Philosophical Library, 1956) p. liii.Google Scholar
  17. 43.
    R. S. Peters, The Concept of Motivation ( London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1958 ) P. 7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfe Mays

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations