more from this thinker
|
more from this text
Single Idea 17082
[filed under theme 1. Philosophy / F. Analytic Philosophy / 7. Limitations of Analysis
]
Full Idea
The alleged paradox of analysis asserts that if one knew what was involved in the concept, one would not need the analysis; if one did not know what was involved in the concept, no analysis could be forthcoming.
Gist of Idea
Paradox: why do you analyse if you know it, and how do you analyse if you don't?
Source
David-Hillel Ruben (Explaining Explanation [1990], Ch 1)
Book Ref
Ruben,David-Hillel: 'Explaining Explanation' [Routledge 1990], p.9
A Reaction
This is the sort of problem that seemed to bug Plato a lot. You certainly can't analyse something if you don't understand it, but it seems obvious that you can illuminatingly analyse something of which you have a reasonable understanding.
Related Ideas
Idea 9163
If we only use induction to assess induction, it is empirically indefeasible, and hence a priori [Field,H]
Idea 17663
If you know what it is, investigation is pointless. If you don't, investigation is impossible [Armstrong]
The
19 ideas
with the same theme
[why analysis is trivial, limited or hopeless]:
1645
|
The desire to split everything into its parts is unpleasant and unphilosophical
[Plato]
|
22
|
Trained minds never expect more precision than is possible
[Aristotle]
|
14165
|
Analysis falsifies, if when the parts are broken down they are not equivalent to their sum
[Russell]
|
18714
|
We already know what we want to know, and analysis gives us no new facts
[Wittgenstein]
|
23499
|
This book says we should either say it clearly, or shut up
[Wittgenstein]
|
5195
|
Critics say analysis can only show the parts, and not their distinctive configuration
[Ayer]
|
21839
|
When I meet objections I just move on; they never contribute anything
[Deleuze]
|
17663
|
If you know what it is, investigation is pointless. If you don't, investigation is impossible
[Armstrong]
|
2557
|
Analytical philosophy seems to have little interest in how to tell a good analysis from a bad one
[Rorty]
|
2481
|
Despite all the efforts of philosophers, nothing can ever be reduced to anything
[Fodor]
|
17082
|
Paradox: why do you analyse if you know it, and how do you analyse if you don't?
[Ruben]
|
2958
|
No one has ever succeeded in producing an acceptable non-trivial analysis of anything
[Lockwood]
|
3352
|
Analytical philosophy analyses separate concepts successfully, but lacks a synoptic vision of the results
[Benardete,JA]
|
9978
|
Analytic philosophy focuses too much on forms of expression, instead of what is actually said
[Tait]
|
6881
|
Analytic philosophy studies the unimportant, and sharpens tools instead of using them
[Mautner]
|
10571
|
Concern for rigour can get in the way of understanding phenomena
[Fine,K]
|
9297
|
You can't understand love in terms of 'if and only if...'
[Svendsen]
|
9136
|
The paradox of analysis says that any conceptual analysis must be either trivial or false
[Sorensen]
|
11147
|
Naturalistic philosophers oppose analysis, preferring explanation to a priori intuition
[Margolis/Laurence]
|