more from this thinker
|
more from this text
Single Idea 9136
[filed under theme 1. Philosophy / F. Analytic Philosophy / 7. Limitations of Analysis
]
Full Idea
The paradox of analysis says if a conceptual analysis states exactly what the original statement says, then the analysis is trivial; if it says something different from the original, then the analysis is mistaken. All analyses are trivial or false.
Gist of Idea
The paradox of analysis says that any conceptual analysis must be either trivial or false
Source
Roy Sorensen (Vagueness and Contradiction [2001], 8.5)
Book Ref
Sorensen,Roy: 'Vagueness and Contradiction' [OUP 2004], p.138
A Reaction
[source is G.E. Moore] Good analyses typically give explanations, or necessary and sufficient conditions, or inferential relations. At their most trivial they at least produce a more profound dictionary than your usual lexicographer. Not guilty.
Related Ideas
Idea 17082
Paradox: why do you analyse if you know it, and how do you analyse if you don't? [Ruben]
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]
|