more from this thinker
|
more from this text
Single Idea 17663
[filed under theme 1. Philosophy / F. Analytic Philosophy / 7. Limitations of Analysis
]
Full Idea
Paradox of Analysis:if we ask what sort of thing an X is, then either we know what an X is or we do not. If we know then there is no need to ask the question. If we do not know then there is no way to begin the investigation. It's pointless or impossible
Gist of Idea
If you know what it is, investigation is pointless. If you don't, investigation is impossible
Source
David M. Armstrong (What is a Law of Nature? [1983], 01.2)
Book Ref
Armstrong,D.M.: 'What is a Law of Nature?' [CUP 1985], p.5
A Reaction
[G.E. Moore is the source of this, somewhere] Plato worried that to get to know something you must already know it. Solving this requires the concept of a 'benign' circularity.
Related Ideas
Idea 2091
Without distinguishing marks, how do I know what my beliefs are about? [Plato]
Idea 9163
If we only use induction to assess induction, it is empirically indefeasible, and hence a priori [Field,H]
Idea 17082
Paradox: why do you analyse if you know it, and how do you analyse if you don't? [Ruben]
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]
|