Philosophy and Philosophers - an Introduction to Western Philosophy - Chapter 12

back to ...

https://sites.google.com/site/philosophygreekancient/philosophy-and-philosophers---an-introduction-to-western-philosophy---chapter-10-1

or ...

CHAPTER TWELVE

Recent philosophy

By “recent philosophy” is here meant philosophy since roughly 1945.

Some of the most significant figures of this period have already been

looked at in some detail in earlier chapters. There will be no attempt

here to discern the detail of trends or tendencies in recent philosophy;

but it can at least be said that recent philosophy is extremely diverse in

its interests and approaches. So in covering the period from 1945 to the

present day in a single chapter I will cite some of the more prominent

names and state briefly what they stand for. There is, no doubt, room

for disagreement over which figures should be selected and which

omitted; there is no question of this choice being definitive. The people

mentioned are discussed in chronological order according to their date

of birth, and main works by the philosophers mentioned are given in

the bibliography.

Gilbert Ryle

Gilbert Ryle (1900–76) was part of a philosophical movement that held

that many philosophical problems arose from a misunderstanding and

misuse of ordinary language. One of the ways in which such misunderstandings

arise is through what Ryle calls “category mistakes”,

whereby we mistakenly take a concept to refer to a certain kind of

entity. Generally this leads to mistaken ontological commitments, that

is, to the existence of all sorts of entities which we are misled into

supposing exist owing to the way we misunderstand our language.

Ryle applies this view to his theory of mind: his opposition to mind as

a ghostly object-like substance. We take the term “mind” to refer to

some special, albeit ethereal, kind of thing. But the mind is not any

kind of thing; it is not a thing at all; rather, to talk of mind is to refer to

certain kinds of behaviour and dispositions to behave. This has led to

305

Ryle’s views being dubbed behaviourist; but this is a label he rejects as

indicating a misunderstanding of his views.

Nelson Goodman

Nelson Goodman (1906– ) is a philosopher with a background in

mathematical logic. His overall philosophical conclusions have led him

to a form of relativism, but a relativism within “rigorous restraints”.

Goodman’s argument is that there can be no way of choosing between

different versions of the world by a direct comparison with a world

that is independent of all versions—all descriptions and depictions—

for there can be no such “world”. What we aim at in world-views is

not truth—that would tend to lead us to the construction of a trivial

disconnected inventory; rather, our view or “world-making” always

involves simplification and abstraction where what is important is

“rightness”, which seems to consist of correctness of “fit” within a

world-view. The choice between different systems or world-views

introduces a battery of criteria; but it is questionable whether these

criteria, if they are given determinate content only within systems, can

avoid irrational relativism.

W.V.O.Quine

W.V.O.Quine (1908– ) is a philosopher much of whose earlier work was

in the philosophy of mathematics and mathematical logic. Quine

agrees with Russell that ordinary language requires “regimentation”

into a clearer logical language which makes the minimum of

ontological presuppositions so that we do not find ourselves

committed, merely because of the grammar of the language we use, to

assuming the existence of various entities. Linguistic expressions such

as names, whose meanings seem to presuppose the existence of the

objects to which they refer, can be replaced by descriptions whereby it

becomes a matter of fact whether anything actually satisfies those

descriptions. Quine has also attacked the analytic/synthetic

distinction, and the view that there is an absolutely non-theoretical

basic language which refers to immediate experience. Quine replaces

this view with a holistic theory of meaning and knowledge: the sense

and epistemological standing of a statement can only be assessed in

relation to its position and entrenchment in the whole system of

statements which is present knowledge, which Quine identifies as “the

whole of science”. Statements about the external world answer to or

confront experience as a whole; we can always hang on to any

statement we like as true provided we are willing, so as to maintain

consistency, to make big enough changes elsewhere in the system.

306 Recent philosophy

J.L.Austin

J.L.Austin (1911–60), like Ryle, thought that philosophical problems

tended to arise from a misunderstanding of language. Unlike Ryle he

did not attempt to replace the systematic philosophies which arose

from what he saw as the inattention to fine distinctions of language

with a systematic philosophy derived from a view of language purged

of such inattention. Austin supposed that philosophy and logic were

too ready to ignore the subtle discriminations present in ordinary

language. This led to the careful study of shades of meaning manifest

in linguistic usage which would be not only a way of avoiding

philosophical error but also of interest in its own right.

Stuart Hampshire

Stuart Hampshire (1914– ) has put forward a theory of language and

knowledge which is relativistic in that the system of concepts which

we bring to talk about the world is not absolute or fixed, but depends

upon the special interests we bring to the world as human beings and

as agents in the world. We cannot detach ourselves as disembodied

spectators and so achieve a disinterested view of the world. He rejects

the view that the more we know about the causes of our actions the

less free we will become; on the contrary, it is the essence of our

existence as human beings always to be able to stand back from

knowledge of our situation, no matter how detailed, and decide what

we then want to do.

Donald Davidson

Donald Davidson (1917– ) has been notably influential on certain parts

of analytical philosophy in recent years. Much of his work has centred

on the philosophy of language, and the implications of this work for

various other areas of philosophy, such as the philosophy of mind. In

the philosophy of mind he argues for an “anomalous monism” where,

although each mental event is identical with a physical event, there are

no strict law-like connections between the two different sorts of

descriptions of events.

P.F.Strawson

P.F.Strawson (1919– ) has been one of the chief opponents of the idea

that logic somehow represents in an ideal form the structure of

Austin, Hampshire, Davidson, Strawson 307

ordinary language. Strawson’s investigations into the informal logic

of ordinary language led him to what he called “descriptive

metaphysics”, which aims to lay bare the most basic features of the

conceptual system we actually have; that is, those features of our

conceptual system which are a historically unchanging core; this is to

be contrasted with “revisionary metaphysics”, which aims to change

or replace the conceptual structure we actually have with a better

one. It is from these considerations that Strawson’s project has been

seen as having an affinity with the Kantian one of making manifest

the common core of conceptual presuppositions logically required for

our talk about the world; however, in Strawson’s case the aim is the

less ambitious one of identifying the logical requirements relative to

our conceptual system, that is, the concepts logically presupposed by

our conceptual system, not by any conceptual system whatsoever. For

example Strawson concludes that the possibility of a world in which

we re-identify various categories of kinds of particular things

depends upon the category of material bodies in space and time.

Strawson has also written against the correspondence theory of truth:

the function of saying “p is true” is not to describe p as having some

special relation with the world, but rather to say that one confirms or

endorses p.

Thomas S.Kuhn

Thomas S.Kuhn (1922– ) was trained as a physicist and has been

extremely influential in the philosophy of both the physical and social

sciences; in this respect he is second only to Popper. His chief thesis

involves suggesting that science is not the tidy rational enterprise it is

sometimes represented as being by philosophers. Scientists most of the

time engage in “puzzle-solving” or “normal science” within a set of

currently unquestioned assumptions about the world which forms a

“paradigm” or world-view. The “anomalies” presented by experience

are in normal science accommodated within the assumptions defining

the paradigm. But eventually the anomalies become too troublesome.

The choice of paradigms, the revolutionary movement between them

being called a “paradigm shift”, is difficult to justify rationally because

the standards of rationality, methodology, and what constitutes good

evidence are determined within each paradigm. Many have seen

Kuhn’s view as an admission of relativism because of the rational

incommensurability of paradigms, and as an undermining of the

rationality of science.

308 Recent philosophy

Paul Feyerabend

Paul Feyerabend (1924– ) is a philosopher whose training was

originally in theoretical physics. His main work has been in

epistemology and the philosophy of science. The chief outcome of his

work has been to criticize the view that there is something called “the

scientific method”, and thus to release human investigations into the

nature of the world from the presupposition that there is only one

rational way of going about such investigations. There is no pure way

of describing the world independently of conceptual and theoretical

assumptions, which leaves us with the possibility of there being a

variety of conceptual systems between which there can be no means of

adjudication ultimately independent of all theoretical assumptions.

This has led to a view of Feyerabend as a methodological anarchist.

But his position is best described as that of a democratic relativist

which, he suggests, frees inquiry from the shackles of supposing there

is only one correct method of understanding the world.

Michael Dummett

The two most important aspects of Michael Dummett’s (1925– )

philosophical doctrines are his search for a systematic theory of

meaning and his anti-realism. The knowledge we display of the

meaning of expressions is based on the implicit knowledge of

linguistic principles, and it is the function of a theory of meaning to

bring these to light. The proposition central to the notion of antirealism

is the assertion that there are certain classes of statements

which are not determinately true or false independently of our means

of knowing which they are. This amounts to a denial of the principle of

bivalence which says that any statement must be determinately either

true or false regardless of whether we can know which it is.

Richard Rorty

Much of Richard Rorty’s (1931– ) recent work has been concerned with

examining the nature of the philosophical enterprise itself. This has led

him to question the presuppositions that lie behind much of what he

identifies as the philosophical tradition. The philosophical approaches

that are chiefly criticized are analytical philosophy and continental

phenomenology; philosophy in these traditions he sees as a kind of

dead end where there is no possible way of adjudicating between

different views. In particular Rorty suggests that the central error of

the philosophical tradition of which he is critical is the attempt to hold

Feyerabend, Dummett, Rorty 309

a mirror up to nature in which is reflected the nature of the world in a

way that is ahistorical, spectatorial, and independent of any

perspective. But we cannot escape our historical and human

perspective. Rorty advocates that we replace traditional “systematic”

philosophy, which aims at timelessly true foundations (represented by

such figures as Descartes, Kant, Husserl, Russell), with “edifying”

philosophy (represented by such figures as Heidegger, Wittgenstein,

Dewey, Sartre), whose central job is the freeing and facilitation of

dialogue between different areas of human inquiry in the historical

context in which they find themselves.

John R.Searle

Much of the work of John R.Searle (1932– ) has been in the philosophy

of language, but he has also done important work in the philosophy of

mind and the philosophical implications of artificial intelligence.

Central to Searle’s work in the philosophy of language is that of

“speech acts” (which partly develops the pioneering work of Austin),

which are distinguished by their point or purpose; expressions with

similar content fall into different types of speech act depending on

what is done with them: whether they are orders, promises, pleas,

descriptions, predictions and the like. Searle aims to produce a

taxonomy of speech acts.

Saul Kripke

Saul Kripke (1940– ) is a philosopher trained in mathematical logic;

his work in modal logic has led him to revive a form of essentialism

and reintroduce the concept of natural or metaphysical necessity.

Necessity is said, especially by empiricists and logical positivists,

only to hold among the propositions of mathematics, logic and

semantic truths (such as “All bachelors are unmarried”), not among

objects or events in the world, and all propositions concerning the

actual nature of the world are contingent. Kripke thinks mistaken the

view of some philosophers that the a priori and the a posteriori, and

the necessary and contingent, are, respectively, coextensive. The

distinctions belong to different philosophical domains: knowledge

and metaphysics. There are, Kripke argues, necessarily true

statements which cannot be known to be true merely through

understanding the meanings of the terms involved, but can be known

only through experience a posteriori. In particular there are

expressions that Kripke calls “rigid designators”, which name the

same individual in every possible world in which that individual

310 Recent philosophy

exists, and which form identity statements, such as “The Morning

Star is identical with the Evening Star”, which are necessary but

knowable only a posteriori. He reintroduces essentialism: the notion

that particular objects and kinds of objects have necessary properties:

that is, those properties something must have to be just that object or

that sort of object.

Kripke 311

continued to ...

https://sites.google.com/site/philosophygreekancient/philosophy-and-philosophers---an-introduction-to-western-philosophy---bibliography