Talk:Philosophy of language
|
|
| This article is part of WikiProject Philosophy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Contents |
What needs to be done
The categories seem complete, but there's still a need to flesh out the areas of - "Ordinary Language Philosophy" - "Mind and Language" - "Social Semantics" - Pragmatism and meaning
There's also a need to address Banno's point about having a brief overview of the discipline. I'll post any ideas I get here.
Lucidish 23:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Old stuff
Merge with Analytic philosophy?
- No, it should not. B 02:05, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
The core material is identical, so unless someone wishes to add some content to philosophy of language that would not also be appropriate in analytic philosophy, why not move phil. Lang material to analytic philosophy, and re-direct.
- It shouldn't be identical. The meat of this article, the key issues, has not even been written yet. B 02:05, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's a difference between them. A merge is neither necessary nor warranted. Lucidish 02:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would argue that it should not be merged with Analytic philosophy. Philosophy of language is a sub-discipline of Analytic, yes, but cramming details about every subsection of Analytic onto one page is extremely cumbersome. Furthermore, Philosophy of language is, in and of itself, a seperate line of inquiry from Analytic and should therefore remain seperate.
I do agree though that the Phil. of language page should mention more about general theories (i.e. an outline of the tradition). As it is currently, the page merely gives a brief "why" and then links to the philosophers involved in the discipline. Maclyn611 00:02, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Seconded. Analytic philosophy is much more than merely the philosophy of language. B 02:05, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
Remarks on reforms
This page is well written, which makes it harder to correct a few difficulties.
The most obvious problem is that it is written in the first person. To my mind, this undermines the neutral point of view that the article should adopt. If nothing else, given that the page has more than one author, who is the I it refers to?
Secondly, although the page will provide motivation to look further, it does not provide an outline of the topic. A brief account of the basic themes and arguments would be a great help!
Finally, and I suspect as a result of the second point, it does not provide links to related ideas and authorities. Not even a link to Wittgenstein! This could be corrected by including a stronger outline of the field.
By way of explanation, I’ve made the following changes:
- The introductory text is no longer in the first person.
- Remove references to “truth” – “meaning” is the central problem of philosophy of language
- Removed a few paragraphs that appeared not to add to the content
- Added a brief summary of 20th Century English philosophy of language, including links to some of the proponents.
Hope it is an improvement, or perhaps that it is so bad someone will have to fix it… Banno 22:55, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Better information on the non-English versions?
If the Analytic bias is a problem, why not simply translate over some of the material from the non-English versions of the page? I don't really speak Spanish, French, or German, but I can see from some of the words (and with the help of the Google translation tool) that there are plenty of references to topics from Continental philosophy there. Some ties to Literary Theory and Literary Criticism could help, too. -- Wclark
What about non-analytic philosophy of language?
Some areas:
- Ancient philosophers on philosophy of language, especially from Plato and the Organon;
- Proto-analytics, eg. Brentano;
- Continental philsophers, esp. Heidegger, Gadamer.
Beyond my knowledge to write this up myself, I have to say, but we shouldn't be talking as if there is nothing more to philosophy of language than analytic philosophy. ---- Charles Stewart 01:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Other fields requiring exposition: - Literary Theory / Hermeneutics - Cultural criticism - Ordinary language philosophy - Mind and language - Ideas and Meaning Lucidish 22:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
stupider and stupider
this article is getting stupider and stupider. the main thread of philosophy of language is realy just Russel's lead and ramifications. But this article, lead by the stupid NPOV juggarnaut, is now becoming some general philosophy of language, literally, to include stupid feminist shits.
the orignal version with the first-person write up is much better in content. Xah Lee 13:10, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? What would you like to see? What is NPOV here? Why should the philosophy of language, as a field, be restricted to the works of Russell and the analytic tradition? Lucidish 18:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Limits of understanding
I've probably got the wrong philosophy article, but I thought that one of the key ideas of Wittgenstein's linguistic turn was the question
- Does the language you have learnt and use, limit your ability to formulate new ideas.
Or conversely, 'are some key problems of philosophy just confusions over the language used to phrase the question'.
There seams to be remarkably little discussion of Wittgenstein here, despite the fact that this article is second major link in the opening paragraph of the Wittgenstein article. -- Solipsist 08:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It's certainly an article in progress. If you want to follow up by adding more on Wittgenstein (both pre- and post- 'Philosophical Investigations'), go right ahead. Lucidish 01:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)