structure for 'Philosophy'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     expand these ideas

1. Philosophy / F. Analytic Philosophy / 7. Limitations of Analysis

[why analysis is trivial, limited or hopeless]

18 ideas
The desire to split everything into its parts is unpleasant and unphilosophical [Plato]
Trained minds never expect more precision than is possible [Aristotle]
Analysis falsifies, if when the parts are broken down they are not equivalent to their sum [Russell]
We already know what we want to know, and analysis gives us no new facts [Wittgenstein]
Critics say analysis can only show the parts, and not their distinctive configuration [Ayer]
When I meet objections I just move on; they never contribute anything [Deleuze]
If you know what it is, investigation is pointless. If you don't, investigation is impossible [Armstrong]
Analytical philosophy seems to have little interest in how to tell a good analysis from a bad one [Rorty]
Despite all the efforts of philosophers, nothing can ever be reduced to anything [Fodor]
Paradox: why do you analyse if you know it, and how do you analyse if you don't? [Ruben]
No one has ever succeeded in producing an acceptable non-trivial analysis of anything [Lockwood]
Analytical philosophy analyses separate concepts successfully, but lacks a synoptic vision of the results [Benardete,JA]
Analytic philosophy focuses too much on forms of expression, instead of what is actually said [Tait]
Analytic philosophy studies the unimportant, and sharpens tools instead of using them [Mautner]
Concern for rigour can get in the way of understanding phenomena [Fine,K]
You can't understand love in terms of 'if and only if...' [Svendsen]
The paradox of analysis says that any conceptual analysis must be either trivial or false [Sorensen]
Naturalistic philosophers oppose analysis, preferring explanation to a priori intuition [Margolis/Laurence]