i have no idea what’s being talked about in this post, and i am beginning to suspect that the only differences here are in respective definitions of ‘philosophy’.
for example,
Many 20th-century philosophers thought philosophy was chiefly concerned with linguistic analysis (Wittgenstein) or conceptual analysis (Carnap). Williamson disagrees.
i don’t think Wittgenstein imagined the tractatus as a work of metaphysics. if it is philosophy, it is philosophy of language. it fits comfortably in ordinary linguistics—now that the linguistic project is better developed—and i doubt Wittgenstein himself would object to this categorization.
perhaps at the time it resolved an ongoing debate within philosophy. but once the question was resolved, it became instead a founding text of a new field.
my pet understanding of philosophy is that it is the pursuit of truth where all known methods fail. so i’m not sure what it would mean to develop a system for philosophy. but of course if instead we mean, like, “modal logic” then… yeah have at it.
i have no idea what’s being talked about in this post, and i am beginning to suspect that the only differences here are in respective definitions of ‘philosophy’.
for example,
i don’t think Wittgenstein imagined the tractatus as a work of metaphysics. if it is philosophy, it is philosophy of language. it fits comfortably in ordinary linguistics—now that the linguistic project is better developed—and i doubt Wittgenstein himself would object to this categorization.
perhaps at the time it resolved an ongoing debate within philosophy. but once the question was resolved, it became instead a founding text of a new field.
my pet understanding of philosophy is that it is the pursuit of truth where all known methods fail. so i’m not sure what it would mean to develop a system for philosophy. but of course if instead we mean, like, “modal logic” then… yeah have at it.