StrictlyLogical Posted May 25, 2014 Report Share Posted May 25, 2014 Is there any current consensus on a systematic philosophy by main stream current philosophers? By "consensus" I do not require something akin to the kind and degree of consensus in science... anything like a 30% grouping of philosophers would qualify. BUT I am looking for a systematic kind of philosophy not a grab bag of disparate ideas. IF such a group and systematic current philosophy exists, how does it treat the analytic synthetic dichotomy? Does anyone really "believe" in that anymore? I use the term "believe" for obvious reasons.... Secondly, how do they respond to the paper by LP on the AS dichotomy? Are there any scholarly rebuttals to that paper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted May 25, 2014 Report Share Posted May 25, 2014 No one really buys the analytic/synthetic dichotomy anymore, not since Quine anyway. I think because logical positivism is not viewed favorably anymore for many reasons besides Quine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine#Rejection_of_the_analytic.E2.80.93synthetic_distinction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 Louie said: No one really buys the analytic/synthetic dichotomy anymore, If only this were true....Many since Quine have defended it, in particular against Quine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank harley Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Perhaps your most manifold distinction is between Anglo-Saxon 'analytical' philosophy and 'continental', which is practised in America, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank harley Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Louie said: If only this were true....Many since Quine have defended it, in particular against Quine. Quine, in 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism' demonstrated that all statements are 'synthetic', and that analytic really means that we've internalized its factual relationship to the world. Therefore, to say that Quine abolished the distinction is somewhat incorrect, although commonly employed with reference to kant. Yet...the problem here is that Kant, carefully read, used 'analytic' as an ad hoc-ism to describe what philosophy is not. inso far as the real problem is finding the synythetic a priori... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Frank said: Yet...the problem here is that Kant, carefully read, used 'analytic' as an ad hoc-ism to describe what philosophy is not. inso far as the real problem is finding the synythetic a priori... Yes, one way to read Kant is to say that the A-S distinction is a result of "maxims" generated by "pure reason" causing "dialectical" error. Its interesting the manifold ways that Kant was a fountainhead for certain schools, where these schools often had different interpretations of his works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank harley Posted June 5, 2014 Report Share Posted June 5, 2014 Frank said: Yes, one way to read Kant is to say that the A-S distinction is a result of "maxims" generated by "pure reason" causing "dialectical" error. Its interesting the manifold ways that Kant was a fountainhead for certain schools, where these schools often had different interpretations of his works. yes...in any case, to return to Quine, i'd say that there's a 'consensus' that his 50-ish article 'Tow dogmeas of empiricism' is extremely impoerant, or even seminal. * Because all knowledge is synthetic, analytic has never existed. * The introduction or rejection of small facts can alter whole systems (his ontology). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.