more from David-Hillel Ruben

Single Idea 17082

[catalogued under 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 Reference

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]