Showing posts with label ordinary language philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ordinary language philosophy. Show all posts

Monday, June 09, 2008

Norman Malcolm, "Defending Common Sense"

Moore's reply to the skeptic, to simply claim that he knows that this is a hand, or that he knows he is a human being, is mistaken because it assumes that saying "I know this is a hand" or "I know I am a human being" makes more sense than "I don't know this is a hand" or "I don't know I'm a human being". The proper response to the skeptic is to say that neither the assertion nor the denial that one knows that this is a hand makes sense (in a philosophical context).

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Friedrich Waismann, "How I See Philosophy"

Philosophy doesn't provide answers to questions, it finds sense for the questions to have, or shows how they lack sense. Philosophers don't explain anything, because to try to explain something would only push the demand for further explanation back a step. Figures of speech present in ordinary language (like "the flow of time") contribute to philosophical perplexity.

Friday, December 15, 2006

C.G. New, "A Plea for Linguistics"

Argues that Austin's claims about when we would say that someone did something deliberately in "A Plea for Excuses" are mistaken; recommends a more assiduous gathering of linguistic data before any claims about "what we say" are made.