Analytical Philosophers say philosophy problems are all language problems: Do you agree or disagree?

Question

Besides the issue of not trusting your sense impressions, this is a major issue in epistemology. Example of Analytical Philosophy philosophers: Russell and Wittgenstein

I have a book by Derrida on Indian philosophy that I hope to get to. The word "wrong" is overly strong and tactless. why not edit it out as It adds little to your commentary which I am still trying to figure out if it A's my Q.

off topic sidenote : I believe Hindi Philosophers say all appearances are illusions we must get past, but language and meanings, which reside in humans only, are puzzles to be solved or dissolved by reason. Wittgenstein pushed Analytical philosophy in his first phase and then he became a Humean- type skeptic and turned behaviorist in his latter phase. Asking if Wittgenstein had studied Hindi philosophy might be a Q worth asking separately.

offtopic note , drgirish, who did you have in mind as a good teacher of Indian philosophy?

Answer 1

It seems to go deeper than language, as most philosophy problems are ultimately responses to the unknown and mysterious quality of the intelligibility of being-- a quality that philosophy or philosophical language does not impose, but rather presumes. This mysterious quality of the intelligibility of existence is the vast horizon to which all human inquiry and experience is beholden and dependent. Post-modern philosophy seems to assert at times that this intelligibility does not exist, but this is more sophistry than anything else.

Answer 2

Wrong. This shall amount to reducing Philosophical problems into languages, and hence a big reductionism. Wittgenstein himself thought that Language depicts reality (Tractitus Logico Philosophicus), but in later Wittgenstein we find him negating this (Philosophical Investigations). He concluded that through language one can not reach reality, and it is foolish to ask for the meaning at all, he says that to know the use of language is to know the meaning and that is all. Wittgenstein concludes saying that "Where upon one can not speak, there upon one must be silent".

The Vienna Circle and Logical Positivists took early Wittgenstein into their head, and believed that through analysis of language one can solve all problems. This is a fallacy, and one can find Linguistic analytical philosophers grouping in the dark and spreading much confusions.

Take a refuge to Indian Philosophy to understand Philosophical problems, which are better understood and better addressed as compared to Western Philosophy. But for this, you shall need an Indian Philosophy teacher, as these can not be understood just by reading English texts.

Answer 3

i too have some "sympathy" with this;
for philosophy has for some time(possibly
thousands of years)been mixed-up in a
hotspoch of logical and national languages.
( so Not just its history!)

i think the way forward now is the "opening
up" and clarifying of the philosophy of
Darwinism.And i dont mean the fictitious
type where someone informs us of Darwin's plans for his theory;i mean how the
recent "birth" of this theory has intertwined
with mass education; all which to my
knowledge is still currenly on-going.
Because its on-going,most of us have
"first-hand-experience" of the theory,in
practise(school/workplace).
And you can trust that in"epistemology"
the members there have virtually the same
background(darwinian)problems to contend
with- so this can be looked upon as a "new
field",one in which nearly all western educated students have-a-say(as we say).

Answer 4

All philosophical concepts that I am aware require language to be understood or communicated. Any belief or thought that causes distress can only be experienced with language.

The ability to speak and to think are a great source of unhappiness in the world. To think and speak, I need my language. Your language may be different, but the process is the same.

Answer 5

If that is so---how could I possibly put an answer into words that would not clash with ---what language?

Answer 6

wel i kinda agree cuz superficially its all linguistic but its roots r beyond that its so profound

Answer 7

You should read a primer on logic or symbolic logic.