During this time, utilitarianism was the only non-skeptical type of ethics to remain popular. I'm currently reading Ray Monk's "How To Read: Wittgenstein" for the second time around. Additionally, Russell adopted Frege's predicate logic as his primary philosophical method, a method Russell thought could expose the underlying structure of philosophical problems. During the 1960s, criticism from within and without caused the analytic movement to abandon its linguistic form. Therefore if there is a purpose or meaning to life, it lies in maximizing, perfecting, and improving states of consciousness. Austin's philosophy of speech acts. If you are feeling suicidal, please get help by visiting /r/suicidewatch or using other resources. The logical positivists opined that statements about value—including all ethical and aesthetic judgments—are non-cognitive; that is, they cannot be objectively verified or falsified. Analytic philosophy is roughly a hundred years old, and it is now the dominant force within Western philosophy. There is no good answer. [–]NeoPlatonist 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children), Wittgenstein - Philosophical Investigations, Tractatus, [–]adodger 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children). For example, he refutes Skinner's classical version of behaviorism while offering an alternative that is nonetheless behaviorist in nature. Then maybe Parfit's Reasons and Persons to round things out with ethics/identity. Also check out David Lewis' On the Plurality of Worlds. I would've liked the "must-read" version of the question better, had it not suffered from the same content-killing generality, and were it not something you could easily answer with a quick look at Wikipedia. [–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (2 children), [–]blacksheep1 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child). Google Drive links and link shorteners are not allowed. I believe he's on record as saying that sometimes he says things not because he believes them to be true or even likely, but because he considers them interesting ideas. Practitioners of types of philosophizing that are not in the analytic tradition—such as phenomenology, classical pragmatism, existentialism, or Marxism—feel it necessary to define their position in relation to analytic philosophy. Originating in the pioneering work of Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore, and Ludwig Wittgenstein in the four decades around the turn of the twentieth century, analytic philosophy established itself in various forms in the 1930s. As a result, analytic philosophers avoided normative ethics and instead began meta-ethical investigations into the nature of moral terms, statements, and judgments. For them, philosophy concerned the clarification of thoughts, rather than having a distinct subject matter of its own. [2][3][4] It also takes things piecemeal, "an attempt to focus philosophical reflection on smaller problems that lead to answers to bigger questions. The positivists adopted the verification principle, according to which every meaningful statement is either analytic or is capable of being verified by experience. Also, the generality of the question promotes depthlessness and pop-philosophy worshiping. He's accepting the terms as accurate but not pretending to be rehashing the versions that so many have rejected. Current analytic political philosophy owes much to John Rawls, who in a series of papers from the 1950s onward (most notably "Two Concepts of Rules" and "Justice as Fairness") and his 1971 book A Theory of Justice, produced a sophisticated defense of a generally liberal egalitarian account of distributive justice. For example, in this view, saying, "Killing is wrong", is equivalent to saying, "Boo to murder", or saying the word "murder" with a particular tone of disapproval. This is a typical problem: Someone comes up with a good idea and gets so excited that they run around acting as if their shiny new hammer turns everything into nails. He wrote a number of books aimed at the general public, including The History of Western Philosophy which became enormously popular, and in 1950 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. Ummm... it's a link to the In Our Time podcast. Philosophers such as David Kellogg Lewis[43] and David Armstrong[44] developed elaborate theories on a range of topics such as universals,[45][46] causation,[47] possibility and necessity,[48] and abstract objects. It's not about objectivity, it's about the depth of answers. [28] A favorite student and friend of Ludwig Wittgenstein, her 1958 article "Modern Moral Philosophy" introduced the term "consequentialism" into the philosophical lexicon, declared the "is-ought" impasse to be unproductive, and resulted in a revival of virtue ethics. That's a great book, and the one I'd recommend for preliminary reading before getting into Wittgenstein. Ordinary-language philosophers often sought to dissolve philosophical problems by showing them to be the result of ordinary misunderstanding language. Although many discussions are continuations of old ones from previous decades and centuries, the debate remains active. free will) require more development. On interpreting the tractatus as a whole, there are two major camps (that isn't to say that there aren't other views, however). Other important figures in its history include the logical positivists (particularly Rudolf Carnap), W. V. O. Quine, Saul Kripke, and Karl Popper. Users are also strongly encouraged to post abstracts for other linked material. Start by looking at Quine's school. [17], Many philosophers and historians have attempted to define or describe analytic philosophy. Eventually, analytic philosophers will be forced to define truth as the absence of non-being (double negative), and this will only make sense in the presence of a totalizing or monistic system. I also suggest you check out the British Idealists (ex. Motivated by the logical positivists' interest in verificationism, logical behaviorism was the most prominent theory of mind of analytic philosophy for the first half of the 20th century. There are famous philosophers of the past whose ideas were once significant, and still provide an important historical backdrop to current ideas, but whom no one discusses in a serious way anymore. Philippa Foot contributed several essays attacking all these theories. Dennett wasn't joking about being a behaviorist and verificationist. It evolved into more sophisticated non-cognitivist theories such as the expressivism of Charles Stevenson, and the universal prescriptivism of R.M. Many traditional philosophical problems are dismissed because their terms are too vague, while those that remain are subjected to a rigorous logical analysis. Russell, along with Wittgenstein, in response promulgated logical atomism and the doctrine of external relations—the belief that the world consists of independent facts.[11]. In more seriousness, I've learned to take what Dennet says with a pinch of salt by now. Blinded by the Enlightenment: Why hyper-rationalism leads to political failure. Apparently, ‘speculative’, as used by analytic philosophers, is not a descriptive term.