Introduction

Abstract

One of the most difficult problems which faces the analytic philosopher or even the historian of the analytic movement, is the characterization of analysis. For once this issue is raised it becomes increasingly difficult to find any satisfactory answer, since most analytic philosophers vary widely in their views not only about substantive philosophical issues but even about what analysis is or is supposed to be. Indeed, from a non-historical point of view, it is difficult to find anything that is uniformly accepted by or common to all the so called “analytic philosophers.” They seem to have no more in common than a family resemblance, to use Wittgenstein’s terminology. But then, a problem arises: if we do not find a set of common features, not even one feature that they all share, how is analysis to be distinguished from other philosophical traditions?