Hello to everyone reading this. Ive been following the group for a while and the sort of questions Ive usually ran up against werent in any way pertaining to analytic philosophy or so Ive observed. The analytic tradition began with the logicians who thought of language differently than the philosophers of antiquity and the common folk. The tradition has evolved with time and with the advent of advanced linguistics and leaps in the are of Computer science have undermined, or claim to have, the tradition itself. A good friend of mine who teaches philosophy in France provided me with an eloquent criticism of the analytic tradition saying that the analytics have laboured hard in the field of mathematics (Frege, Russell) and language (Wittgenstein, Carnap) without making any real contributions to philosophy with such labours. Metaphysics was abandoned by many in the wake of new scientific technology and now the fortress of analytic philosophy is under attack from linguistics and neuroscience which claim to the ultimate solutions and thus rendering analytic philosophy useless. Are such fears valid? Why would we need analytic philosophy when most of its problems are scientifically verifiable?
Posted on: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 03:45:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015