ion-exchange reaction, any of a class of chemical reactions between two substances (each consisting of positively and negatively charged species called ions) that involves an exchange of one or more ionic components.. Ions are atoms, or groups of atoms, that bear a positive or negative electric blogger.com pairs or other multiples they make up the substance of many crystalline materials Philosophy of space and time is the branch of philosophy concerned with the issues surrounding the ontology, epistemology, and character of space and blogger.com such ideas have been central to philosophy from its inception, the philosophy of space and time was both an inspiration for and a central aspect of early analytic blogger.com subject focuses on a number of basic issues, Reprinted in Modality and Tense: Philosophical Papers. Fine, Kit. a. “The Non-Identity of a Material Thing and Its Matter.” Mind (): Fine, Kit. b. “The Role of Variables.” The Journal of Philosophy 50 (12): Fine, Kit. a. “Class and Membership.” The Journal of Philosophy (11): Fine, Kit
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
Linguistic philosophy may be characterized as the view that a focus on language is key to both the content and method proper to the discipline of philosophy as a whole and so is distinct from the Philosophy of Language. Linguistic philosophy includes both Ordinary Language philosophy reaction papers on philosophy Logical Positivism, developed by the philosophers of the Vienna Circle for more detail see Analytic Philosophy section 3.
These two schools are inextricably linked historically and theoretically, and one of the keys to understanding Ordinary Language philosophy is, indeed, understanding the relationship it bears to Logical Positivism.
Ordinary Language philosophy is generally associated with the later views of Ludwig Wittgensteinand with the work done by the philosophers of Oxford University between approximately The origins of Ordinary Language philosophy reach back, however, much earlier than to work done at Cambridge University, usually marked as beginning in with the return of Wittgenstein, after some time away, to the Cambridge faculty.
It is often noted that G. Major figures of Ordinary Language philosophy include in the early phases John Wisdom, Norman Malcolm, Alice Ambrose, reaction papers on philosophy, Morris Lazerowitz, and in the later phase Gilbert Ryle, reaction papers on philosophy, J. Austin and P. Strawson, reaction papers on philosophy others. However, it is important to note reaction papers on philosophy the Ordinary Language philosophical view was not developed as a unified theory, nor was it an organized program, reaction papers on philosophy, as such.
Ordinary Language philosophy is besides an historical movement foremost a methodology — one which is committed to the close and careful study of the uses of the expressions of language, especially the philosophically problematic ones. A commitment to this methodology as that which is proper to, and most fruitful for, the discipline of reaction papers on philosophy, is what unifies an assortment of otherwise diverse and independent views.
Reaction papers on philosophy Ordinary Language philosophy, at issue is the use of the expressions of language, reaction papers on philosophy, not expressions in and of themselves.
So, reaction papers on philosophy, at issue is not, for example, ordinary versus say technical words ; nor is it a distinction based on the language used in various areas of discourse, for example academic, technical, scientific, or lay, slang or street discourses — ordinary uses of language occur in all discourses. This may have both a lay and a scientific use, and both uses may count as ordinary; as long as it is quite clear which discourse is in play, and thus which of the distinct uses of the expression is in play.
Though connected, the difference in use of the expression in different discourses signals a difference in the sense with which it is used, on the Ordinary Language view. One use, say the use in physics, in which it refers to a vacuum, is distinct from its lay use, in which it refers rather more flexibly to, say, a room with no objects in it, or an expanse of land with no buildings or trees. However, on this view, one sense of the reaction papers on philosophy, though more precise than the other, would not do as a replacement of the other term; for the lay use of the term is perfectly adequate for the uses it is put to, and the meaning of the term in physics would reaction papers on philosophy allow speakers to express what they mean in these other contexts.
Non-ordinary uses of language are thought to be behind much philosophical theorizing, according to Ordinary Language philosophy: particularly where a theory results in a view that conflicts with what might be ordinarily said of some situation, reaction papers on philosophy. But according to the Ordinary Language position, non-ordinary uses of expressions simply introduce new uses of expressions.
Should criteria for their use be provided, according to reaction papers on philosophy Ordinary Language philosopher, there is no reason to rule them out. An ideal language is supposed to represent reality more precisely and perspicuously than ordinary language. Ordinary Language philosophy emerged in reaction against certain views surrounding this notion of an ideal language. Contrary to this view, according to Ordinary Language philosophy, it is the attempt to construct an ideal language that leads to philosophical problems, since it involves the non-ordinary uses of language.
The key view to be found in the metaphilosophy of the Ordinary Language philosophers is that ordinary language is perfectly well suited to its purposes, and stands in no need of reform — though it can always be supplemented, and is also in a constant state of evolution.
On the positive side, the analysis of the ordinary uses of language may reaction papers on philosophy lead to philosophical knowledge, according to at least some versions of the view. Later Ordinary Language philosophers such as Strawson, however, argued that this did count as new knowledge — for it made possible new understanding of our experience of reality.
It does, however, turn out to be a somewhat different project to that which it is traditionally conceived to be. The genesis of Ordinary Reaction papers on philosophy philosophy occurred in the work of Wittgenstein after his return to Cambridge.
See P. Hacker for a more detailed reaction papers on philosophy account, and biographical details, of the Cambridge and Oxford associates of Wittgenstein.
The Wittgensteinians developed more explicit arguments that tried to explain and justify the method of appeal to ordinary language than did Wittgenstein. Nevertheless, it is possible to understand what they were doing as remaining faithful to the Wittgensteinian tenet that one cannot propound philosophical theses insofar as claims about meaning are not in themselves theses about meaning. Indeed, the view was that the appeal to the ordinary uses of language is an act of reminding us of how some term or expression is used anyway — to show its meaning rather than explain it.
The first stirrings of the Ordinary Language views emerged as a reaction against the prevailing Logical Atomist, and later, Logical Positivist views that had been initially ironically developed by Wittgenstein himself, and published in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in In order reaction papers on philosophy understand this reaction, we must take a brief look at the development of Ideal Language philosophy, which formed the background against which Ordinary Language philosophy arose.
The conception of a truth-functional language is deeply connected with that of the truth- conditional conception of meaning for natural reaction papers on philosophy. On this view, the truth-condition of a sentence is its meaning — it is that in virtue of which an expression has a meaning — and the meaning of a compound sentence is determined by the meanings of its constituent parts, that is the words that compose it. Specifically, the thought began to emerge that the logic that was being captured in ever more sophisticated systems of symbolic logic was the structure that is either actually hidden beneath natural, ordinary language, or it is the structure which, if not present in ordinary language, ought to be.
Both Russell and Frege recognized that natural language did not always, on the surface at any rate, behave like symbolic logic. But all propositions that can be the arguments of truth-functions must be determinately either true or false. The surface grammar of the proposition appears to claim of some object X, that it is bald. Therefore, it would appear that the proposition is true or false depending on whether X is bald or not bald. But there is no X.
Since the elementary proposition that claims that there is such an X is straightforwardly false, then by the rules of the propositional calculus this renders the entire complex proposition straightforwardly false, reaction papers on philosophy. This had the result that it was no longer necessary to agonize over whether something that does not exist can be bald or not! This combination of views constituted his Logical Atomism for more detail see Analytic Philosophysection 2d.
According to Russell, the simple parts of propositions reaction papers on philosophy the simple parts of the world.
And just as more complex propositions are built up out of simpler ones, so the complex facts and objects in reality are built up out of simpler ones Russell The essence of Russellian Logical Atomism is that once we analyze language into its true logical form, we can simply read off from it the ultimate ontological structure of reality. The basic assumption at work here, which formed the foundation for the Ideal Language view, is that reaction papers on philosophy essential and fundamental purpose of language is to represent the world.
A logically perfect language is, on this line of thought, a literal mirror of metaphysical reality. The Ideal Language view gave weight to the growing suspicion that ordinary language actually obscured our access to reality, because it obscured true logical form. Perhaps, the thought went, ordinary language does not represent the world as it really is. Wittgenstein, in his Tractatus, took these basic ideas of Logical Atomism to a more reaction papers on philosophy level, but also provided the materials for the development of the views by the Logical Positivists.
An ideal language, according to Wittgenstein, was understood to actually share a structure reaction papers on philosophy metaphysical reality. See Coffachapter 13 for an authoritative history of this period in Vienna. This group was primarily interested in the philosophy of science and epistemology.
Unlike the Cambridge analysts, however, who merely thought metaphysics had to be done differentlythat is more rigorously, the Logical Positivists thought it should not be done at all, reaction papers on philosophy. The latter, although not meaningless, were nevertheless all tautologous — empty of empirical, factual content. What they did believe was that metaphysical and other propositions are nonsense because they cannot be confirmed — there exists no procedure by which they may be verified.
Logical Positivism cemented the Ideal Language view insofar as it accepted all of the elements we have identified; the view that ordinary language is misleading, and that underlying the vagueness and opacity of ordinary language is a precise and perspicuous language that is truth-functional and truth-conditional. From these basic ideas emerged the notion that a meaningful language is meaningful in virtue of having a systematicand thus formalizable syntactic and reaction papers on philosophy structure, which, although it is often obscured in ordinary language, could be revealed with proper philosophical and logical analysis.
It is in opposition to this overall picture that Ordinary Language philosophy arose. Ideal language came to be seen as thoroughly misleading as to the true structure of reality.
Contrary to this notion, according to Ambrose, ordinary language is the very paradigm of meaningfulness, reaction papers on philosophy. Wittgenstein, for example, said in the Philosophical Investigations that.
That is to say, reaction papers on philosophy, we are not striving after an ideal, as if our ordinary vague sentences had not yet got a quite unexceptionable sense, and a perfect language awaited construction by us. Section But although the Positivists ruled out metaphysical and many other non-empirically verifiable uses of language as nonsense on the basis of the Verification Principle, the Ordinary Language philosophers objected to them as concealed non-ordinary uses of language — not to be ruled out, as such, so long as criteria for their use were provided.
In such a language, philosophical problems would be eliminated because they could not even be formulated.
On the other hand, for the Ordinary Language philosophers, the aim was to resolve philosophical confusion, but one could expect to achieve a kind of philosophical enlightenment, or certainly a greater understanding of ourselves and the world, in the process of such resolution: for philosophy is seen as an ongoing practice without an ultimate end-game. Most strikingly, however, is the difference in the views about linguistic meaning between the Ideal and Ordinary Language philosophers.
The exact workings of such a theory have never been fully detailed, but we turn to examine what we can of it below section 3a. That is, it is not, on a use-theory of meaning, reaction papers on philosophy, the content of a proposition that marks it as belonging to such categories, but the way it is used in the language. For more on this aspect of a use-theory, see for example Malcolm ; Firstly, because they believed it distorted the ordinary use of language, and this distortion reaction papers on philosophy itself a source of philosophical problems.
Secondly, they argued that metaphysical theorizing was superfluous to our philosophical needs — metaphysics was, basically, reaction papers on philosophy, thought to be beside the point. Both objections rested on the view that our ordinary perceptions of the world, and our ordinary use of language to talk about them, are all we need to observe in order to dissipate philosophical perplexity.
On this view, metaphysics adds nothing, reaction papers on philosophy, but poses the danger of distorting what the issues really are. Philosophy is, thus, quite distinct from the empirical sciences — as the Positivists agreed. For Ordinary Language philosophy, however, the distinction did not rest on issues of verification, but on reaction papers on philosophy view reaction papers on philosophy philosophy is a practice rather than an accumulation of knowledge or the discovery of new, special philosophical facts.
On the contrary Wittgenstein claimed:. Philosophy simply puts everything before reaction papers on philosophy, and neither explains nor deduces anything. Metaphysical theorizing requires that language be used in ways that it is not ordinarily used, according to Wittgenstein, and the task proper to philosophy is to simply remind us what the ordinary uses actually are:.
And this description gets its light, that is to say its purpose, from the philosophical problems. These are, of course, not empirical problems; they are solved rather by looking into the workings of our language, and that in such a way as to make us recognise these workings; in despite of an urge to misunderstand them.
The problems are solved, not by giving new information, but by arranging what we have always known. Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. What we do is bring words back from their metaphysical to their everyday use. However, reaction papers on philosophy, the idea of philosophy as therapy was not an idea that was taken too kindly by traditional philosophers. In the following sections, four important aspects of early Ordinary Language philosophy are examined, reaction papers on philosophy, along with some of the key objections.
In examining the view that metaphysics leads to the distortion of the ordinary uses of language, the question must also be answered as to why this was supposed to be a negative thing — since that is not at all obvious.
Some attempts were made by Ryle to get clearer on the matter see ; ; For example, he emphasized, as we noted in the introduction, that it is not words that are of interest, but their uses :. Malcolm described the notion of the ordinary use of some expression thus:. which is ordinarily used to describe a certain sort of situation.
By this I do not mean that the expression need be one that is frequently used. It need only be an expression which would be used… To be an ordinary expression it must have a commonly accepted use; it need not be the case that it is ever used.
Eastern Philosophers vs Western Philosophers. Epic Rap Battles of History
, time: 4:20The Kibitzer's Cafe - Chess Discussion Forum
We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow blogger.com more Feb 06, · 1. Origins and Character. What we now know as transcendentalism first arose among the liberal New England Congregationalists, who departed from orthodox Calvinism in two respects: they believed in the importance and efficacy of human striving, as opposed to the bleaker Puritan picture of complete and inescapable human depravity; and they emphasized the unity rather than the “Trinity” of Philosophy of space and time is the branch of philosophy concerned with the issues surrounding the ontology, epistemology, and character of space and blogger.com such ideas have been central to philosophy from its inception, the philosophy of space and time was both an inspiration for and a central aspect of early analytic blogger.com subject focuses on a number of basic issues,
No comments:
Post a Comment