more from this thinker
|
more from this text
Single Idea 23499
[filed under theme 1. Philosophy / F. Analytic Philosophy / 7. Limitations of Analysis
]
Full Idea
The whole sense of the book might be summed up in the following words: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.
Gist of Idea
This book says we should either say it clearly, or shut up
Source
Ludwig Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus [1921], Pref)
Book Ref
Wittgenstein,Ludwig: 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Pears)', ed/tr. Pears,D. /McGuinness,B. [RKP 1961], p.3
A Reaction
This also provides the last sentence of his book. I think this is an axiom of modern analytic philosophy. The dream is to clarify everything, and belief that this is possible puts logic centre-stage, as the most precise language available.
Related Idea
Idea 6870
I say (contrary to Wittgenstein) that philosophy expresses what we thought we must be silent about [Ansell Pearson on Wittgenstein]
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]
|