Combining Texts

Ideas for 'works', 'A General Principle to Explain Laws of Nature' and 'Logical Atomism'

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

display all the ideas for this combination of texts

4 ideas

1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 2. Invocation to Philosophy
19395 Philosophy is sanctified, because it flows from God [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: Philosophy is sanctified by having its streams flow from the fountain of God's attributes.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (A General Principle to Explain Laws of Nature [1687], p.69)
1. Philosophy / F. Analytic Philosophy / 1. Nature of Analysis
6118 Philosophy is logical analysis, followed by synthesis [Russell]
     Full Idea: The business of philosophy, as I conceive it, is essentially that of logical analysis, followed by logical synthesis.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Logical Atomism [1924], p.162)
     A reaction: I am uneasy about Russell's hopes for the contribution that logic could make, but I totally agree that analysis is the route to wisdom, and I take Aristotle as my role model of an analytical philosopher, rather than the modern philosophers of logic.
1. Philosophy / F. Analytic Philosophy / 6. Logical Analysis
6116 A logical language would show up the fallacy of inferring reality from ordinary language [Russell]
     Full Idea: We are trying to create a perfectly logical language to prevent inferences from the nature of language to the nature of the world, which are fallacious because they depend upon the logical defects of language.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Logical Atomism [1924], p.159)
     A reaction: Wittgenstein seems to have rebelled against this idea, so that one strand of his later philosophy leads to 'ordinary language' philosophy, which is exactly what Russell is criticising. Wittgenstein seems to have seen 'logical language' as an oxymoron.
1. Philosophy / G. Scientific Philosophy / 3. Scientism
6117 Philosophy should be built on science, to reduce error [Russell]
     Full Idea: We would be wise to build our philosophy upon science, because the risk of error in philosophy is pretty sure to be greater than in science.
     From: Bertrand Russell (Logical Atomism [1924], p.160)
     A reaction: If you do very little, it reduces the 'risk of error'. I agree that philosophers should start from the facts, and be responsive to new facts, and that science is excellent at discovering facts. But I don't think cognitive science is the new epistemology.