[hist-analytic] Whither Analytic Philosophy?

Roger Bishop Jones rbj at rbjones.com
Mon Feb 1 14:55:04 EST 2010

On Monday 01 Feb 2010 17:34, Jlsperanza at aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/1/2010 11:52:39  A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
> rbj at rbjones.com writes:
> >I wonder whether a general discussion of ways forward for analytic
> >philosophy would be of interest?
> I guess I'll look for Aunt Matilda's crystal ball in the attic.

I was thinking more of preferences or prescriptions than predictions, but 
predictions are also of interest.

> -- I am myself now become a 'historicist': with Grice dead in 1988 --
> whither indeed!

With you JL, I feel obliged to be picky about words.
Aren't you a historian rather than a historicist, or are you both?

> --- People are talking of 'post-analytic', now -- but these are people who
> never _were_ analytic in the first person, which makes their speculations
> rather  mystic.

and do they mean a philosophy which no longer undertakes analysis, or one 
which is no longer exclusively analytic.

I don't advocate exclusively analytic philosophy, I just use "analytic" as an 
adjective for a particular kind or part of philosophy.
I notice that your reference below gets us to an article which thinks analytic 
philosophy is about a century old, (and I have heard you speak of this as the 
scope of this list) but philosophical analysis goes back at least as far as 
Socrates, so I'm not keen on the use of "analytic" to refer to a period rather 
than a kind.

Of course, if you do use it for a period, then it will be apt to refer to 
post-analytic, even for Gricean philosophy if you do it too late for it to be 

> I mean, analytic philosophy is as broad and diverse as "analytic
> philosophers". You, R. B. Jones, are a positivist, so you are, I guess, 
>  concerned with 'whither _positivism_?", rather.

No, I really was interested in "whither analytic?".
And my positivism is far removed from what people think positivism is, as was 
Carnap's (which was also far removed from what most philosophers think 
Carnap's philosophy was), and really is very analytic (if only I could 
synthesize a good account of it).

Is there a hidden agenda in my question?
Am I making an opportunity to ask the question "what's wrong with analytic 
philosophy" so we know what to fix?

Does that question make sense to a scholar of Grice?
Surely one just observes carefully and admires?
Is the future more of the same?

> But I'm starting to ramble...

Way to late to save yourself from that!
But you are an entertaining and loveable rambler.

for his-self

More information about the hist-analytic mailing list