언어적 전회와 분석철학
The Linguistic Turn and Analytic Philosophy
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Analytic Philosophy is roughly 100 years old, and it is now the dominant force within Western philosophy. Therefore, it is meaningful to review the historical origins and roots of analytic philosophy at present, and to examine what are the typical characteristics of what is called “analytic philosophy” as analytic philosophy. Some have found that there is a single characteristic that defines an analytic philosophy and have attempted to define analytic philosophy based on any necessary and sufficient conditions. There are, however, many things based on prejudices or misconceptions that are easily refuted. For example, it is sometimes believed that analytic philosophy is committed to a thoroughly anti-metaphysical stance, analytic philosophy ignores or neglects history of philosophy, or analytic philosophy adheres to allegiance to science and scientific method. These beliefs are cases of typical biases or misconceptions about analytic philosophy. However, there is a view about analytic philosophy that can not easily be refuted. It is the view that analytic philosophy is essentially linguistic philosophy, and analytic philosophy was born when philosophers adopted linguistic turn. Among others, M. Dummett argued that “analytical philosophy was born when the linguistic turn was adopted”, and is considered to be the representative of analytic philosophers who has this view. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine this view, among other attempts to define analytic philosophy, that analytic philosophy was born through linguistic turn and that analytic philosophy is linguistic philosophy. I attempts to clarify the meaning of the expressions “linguistic turn” or “linguistic philosophy” by examining the background and the various contexts in which these expressions are used, and then consider whether linguistic turn is defining characteristics that can define analytic philosophy. In this process, we pay attention to the revolutionary nature of the 20th century analytic philosophy and examine the close connection between analytic philosophy and Wittgenstein’s linguistic turn. In conclusion, we will argue that linguistic turn is a feature of some phases of analytic philosophy, but it is insufficient to cover all phases of analytic philosophy. As a result, I would argue that linguistic turn as well as other prejudices or misconceptions can not be regarded as a single characteristic that defines analytic philosophy.
Abstract
Analytic Philosophy is roughly 100 years old, and it is now the dominant force within Western philosophy. Therefore, it is meaningful to review the historical origins and roots of analytic philosophy at present, and to examine what are the typical characteristics of what is called “analytic philosophy” as analytic philosophy. Some have found that there is a single characteristic that defines an analytic philosophy and have attempted to define analytic philosophy based on any necessary and sufficient conditions. There are, however, many things based on prejudices or misconceptions that are easily refuted. For example, it is sometimes believed that analytic philosophy is committed to a thoroughly anti-metaphysical stance, analytic philosophy ignores or neglects history of philosophy, or analytic philosophy adheres to allegiance to science and scientific method. These beliefs are cases of typical biases or misconceptions about analytic philosophy. However, there is a view about analytic philosophy that can not easily be refuted. It is the view that analytic philosophy is essentially linguistic philosophy, and analytic philosophy was born when philosophers adopted linguistic turn. Among others, M. Dummett argued that “analytical philosophy was born when the linguistic turn was adopted”, and is considered to be the representative of analytic philosophers who has this view. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine this view, among other attempts to define analytic philosophy, that analytic philosophy was born through linguistic turn and that analytic philosophy is linguistic philosophy. I attempts to clarify the meaning of the expressions “linguistic turn” or “linguistic philosophy” by examining the background and the various contexts in which these expressions are used, and then consider whether linguistic turn is defining characteristics that can define analytic philosophy. In this process, we pay attention to the revolutionary nature of the 20th century analytic philosophy and examine the close connection between analytic philosophy and Wittgenstein’s linguistic turn. In conclusion, we will argue that linguistic turn is a feature of some phases of analytic philosophy, but it is insufficient to cover all phases of analytic philosophy. As a result, I would argue that linguistic turn as well as other prejudices or misconceptions can not be regarded as a single characteristic that defines analytic philosophy.
참고문헌 (38)
- Wittgenstein, L., "논리철학론" (2012), 서광사
- Corrado, M., "분석철학: 그 전통과 쟁점들" (1986), 서광사
- Schwartz, S. P., "분석철학의 역사" (2017), 서광사
- Glock H-J., "분석철학이란 무엇인가?" (2009), 서광사
- Bergmann, G., "The Linguistic Turn" (1967), University of Chicago Press
- Bergmann, G., "A Positivistic Metaphysics of Consciousness", Mind, 54 (1945)
- Black, M., "Relations between Logical Positivism and the Cambridge School of Analysis", Erkenntnis, 8 (1938)
- Blanshard, B., "Reason and Analysis" (1962), Open Court
- Carnap, R., "On the Character of Philosophical Problems", Philosophy of Science, 1 (1934)
- Dummett, M., "Origins of Analytical Philosophy" (1993), Harvard University Press
- Dummett, M., "Truth and Other Enigmas" (1978), Duckworth
- Feigl H., "Readings in Philosophical Analysis" (1949), Appleton-Century-Crofts, INC
- Frege, G., "The Foundations of Arithmetic" (1953), Blackwell
- Hacker, P. M. S., "The Oxford Handbook of the History of Analytic Philosophy" (2013), Oxford University Press
- Hacker, P. M. S., "The Analytic Turn: Analysis in Early Analytic Philosophy and Phenomenology" (2000), Routledge
- Lewis, H. D., "Clarity is not Enough" (1963), Allen & Unwin
- MacIntyre, A., "Philosophy in History" (1984), Cambridge University Pres
- Müller, M., "Kleines Philosophisches Wörterbuch" (1979), Herder
- Nagel, E., "Impressions and Appraisals of Analytic Philosophy in Europe Ⅰ-Ⅱ", Journal of Philosophy, 33 (1936)
- Pap, A., "Elements of Analytic Philosophy" (1949), Hafner
- Parson, Ch., "Future Pasts: The Analytic Tradition in Twentieth-Century Philosophy" (2001), Oxford University Press
- Putnam, H., "Renewing Philosophy" (1992), Harvard University Press
- Quine, W. V., "Theories and Things" (1981), Havard University Press
- Quine, W. V., "“Epistemology Naturalized” Ontological Relativity and Other Essays" (1969), Columbia University Press
- Quine, W. V., "From a Logical Point of View" (1953), Harvard University Press
- Quine, W. V., "From a Logical Point of View" (1953), Harvard University Press
- Reck, E., "The Historical Turn in Analytic Philosophy" (2013), Palgrave Macmillan
- Rorty, R., "The Linguistic Turn" (1967), University of Chicago Press
- Russell, B., "The Problems of Philosophy" (1912), Oxford University Press
- Russell, B., "A History of Western Philosophy" (1905), Simon & Schuster
- Russell, B., "The Philosophy of Leibniz" (1900), Routledge
- Sluga, H., "What has history to do with me? Wittgenstein and Analytic Philosophy", Inquiry, 41 (1998)
- Sorell, T., "Analytic Philosophy and History of Philosophy" (2005), Oxford University Press
- Strawson, P. F., "Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics" (1959), Methuen
- Wagner, P., "The Linguistic Turn and Other Misconceptions about Analytic Philosophy", Critique & Humanism, 31 (2010)
- Wittgenstein, L., "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" (1961), Routledge & Kegan Paul
- Wolf, A., "Empiricism and Sociology", pp.307~ (1978), Reidel
- Wright, G. H. von, "The Tree of Knowledge" (1971), Brill