more from this thinker     |     more from this text

Single Idea 11147

[filed under theme 1. Philosophy / F. Analytic Philosophy / 7. Limitations of Analysis ]

Full Idea

Philosophers who oppose conceptual analysis identify their approach as being 'naturalistic'. Philosophy is supposed to be continuous with science, and philosophical theories are to be defended on explanatory grounds, not by a priori intuitions.

Gist of Idea

Naturalistic philosophers oppose analysis, preferring explanation to a priori intuition

Source

E Margolis/S Laurence (Concepts [2009], 5.2)

Book Ref

'Stanford Online Encyclopaedia of Philosophy', ed/tr. Stanford University [plato.stanford.edu], p.19

A Reaction

[They cite Papineau 1993, Devitt 1996 aand Kornblith 2002] I think there is a happy compromise here. I agree that any philosophical knowledge should be continuous with science, but we shouldn't prejudge how the analytic branch of science is done.

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]