Combining Texts

Ideas for 'Reply to Richards', 'Significance of the Kripkean Nec A Posteriori' and 'Should a materialist believe in qualia?'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts

---

3 ideas

1. Philosophy / C. History of Philosophy / 5. Modern Philosophy / c. Modern philosophy mid-period

13966	Analytic philosophy loved the necessary a priori analytic, linguistic modality, and rigour [Soames]
	Full Idea: The golden age of analytic philosophy (mid 20th c) was when necessary, a priori and analytic were one, all possibility was linguistic possibility, and the linguistic turn gave philosophy a respectable subject matter (language), and precision and rigour.
	From: Scott Soames (Significance of the Kripkean Nec A Posteriori [2006], p.166)
	A reaction: Gently sarcastic, because Soames is part of the team who have put a bomb under this view, and quite right too. Personally I think the biggest enemy in all of this lot is not 'language' but 'rigour'. A will-o-the-wisp philosophers dream of.

1. Philosophy / E. Nature of Metaphysics / 3. Metaphysical Systems

22140	The greatest philosophers are methodical; it is what makes them great [Grice]
	Full Idea: The greatest philosophers have been the greatest, and most self-conscious, methodologists; indeed, I am tempted to regard the fact as primarily accounting for their greatness as philosophers.
	From: H. Paul Grice (Reply to Richards [1986], p.66), quoted by Stephen Boulter - Why Medieval Philosophy Matters 3
	A reaction: I agree. Philosophy is nothing if it is not devoted to the attempt to be fully rational, and that implies consistency and coherence. If a thinker doesn't even try to be systematic, I would not consider them to be a philosopher.

1. Philosophy / F. Analytic Philosophy / 5. Linguistic Analysis

13974	If philosophy is analysis of meaning, available to all competent speakers, what's left for philosophers? [Soames]
	Full Idea: If all of philosophy is the analysis of meaning, and meaning is fundamentally transparent to competent speakers, there is little room for philosophically significant explanations and theories, since they will be necessary or a priori, or both.
	From: Scott Soames (Significance of the Kripkean Nec A Posteriori [2006], p.186)
	A reaction: He cites the later Wittgenstein as having fallen into this trap. I suppose any area of life can have its specialists, but I take Shakespeare to be a greater master of English than any philosopher I have ever read.