A Spectrum of Ordinary Language Positions
Ernest Gellner speaks of a "greased pole" upon which one can slide up as well as down. Or should we think of the positions as stations along a unidirectional via dolorosa culminating in the death of OLP but without hope of resurrection? In any case, here are the positions in Gellner's words, but not all his words. (Words and Things, unrevised ed., p. 166). Commentary follows.
(show)
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Blanshard on Socrates and Ordinary Language Philosophy
- Adorno on Wittgenstein's Indescribable Vulgarity
- Why Meaning Cannot be Identified with Use
- Wittgenstein on Time and Flux
- Are Metaphysicians Mad? Hobbes and Ordinary Language
- Wittgensteinian Therapeutic Syntactic Atomism
- Some Ordinary Language Philosophy Links
- A Spectrum of Ordinary Language Positions
- Meaning and Contrast: How the OL Boys Go Off the Rails
- Contrast Arguments
- What is the Appeal of Ordinary Language Philosophy?
- Ordinary Language Philosophy as Cave Philosophy
- How Ordinary Language Philosophy Rests on Logical Positivism
- Ernest Gellner on Ordinary Language Philosophy
Posted by William F. Vallicella on
Saturday February 25, 2006 at 9:33am
I wish I had a copy of Geller to hand, but I also think I’d have trouble reading very much of it. Lots of flogging straw men and dead horses, I fear.
Apparently the principal enemy targeted in (1)—(3) is the later Wittgenstein. We all know some of his notorious dicta like “philosophical problems begin when language goes on holiday.” Now whether slogans like that represent a systematic and no-exception programme on Wittgenstein’s part, I just don’t know.
I think I can say, however, that Austin ( and his friends ) did not subscribe to (1) – (3), nor to (4). Austin acknowledges there are genuine philosophical problems. Problems concerning, for example, human freedom and responsibility. He says only that our philosophical reflections should not charge forward in utter disregard and contempt for what OL has to say about these matters. What sort of excuses for failing to act are already built into our language? What refinements and complications have the law and psychology added?. Austin says we should consider all of these resources. OL is at best the “first word”, never the only or last word, in philosophical inquiries. See his prolegomena to OLP, “A Plea for Excuses”.
Austin would also agree with you on (5)-(8).
Let me add: I believe that there were in fact fundamental problems with the methods of OLP as Austin and other practiced them-—you don’t, for example, study ordinary usage by introspecting on what you’d think people would say about strange cases—but I haven’t heard anything like coming from Geller.
It is a very good book, albeit polemical. You would enjoy it. He's a maverick too, like you and me.
I think you and I basically agree. "OL is at best the “first word”, never the only or last word, in philosophical inquiries." I'll drink to that.
Good comment. I agree.
2. There are no philosophical problems properly speaking, but there are important difficulties generated by language which can be clarified by understanding language.
>>>
Why do you put two important ideas together like this? Surely one can hold, as I do, that there are some very difficult philosophical problems on which linguistic techniques have no purchase. But, equally, there seem to be certain problems that have a root in misunderstanding of or problems about language.
Did you read what I wrote? Why do I put two important ideas together like this? It is obvious that I am quoting Gellner here.
I'm not sure whether the "Geller" typo was a (Freudian) slip with Uri or Efim Geller in mind. I assume everyone is old enough to remember Uri on the Carson show "bending" spoons with his mind.
The only book I studied seriously in high school was MCO, so the latter is also possible. I gave up chess in college because I found my better games invariably gave me a pounding headache. Is this a common problem that the pros just get through? I never did. I'd like to start playing again, but I don't need more headaches!
May I give you and your readers an interesting footnote to this discussion of OLP? Gellner and friends seem to assume that OLP was some sort of novel anti-philosophical pathology of the 20th century. But OLP, at least as far as a commitment to (4)-(8) is concerned, has deep roots in the history of philosophy. In the 13th century there was an approach to various logical and semantic problems called cassation ( cassatio ). Utterances like "I am not speaking right now" or "everything I say is a lie" are analyzed and rejected as nonsense ( nil dicis ) from the perspective of the ordinary speaker ( rusticus ).
I never reached the pro level (though I've drawn and beaten plenty of titled players in tournament play (unfortunately, they beat me more often)), but I never suffered headaches from chess, and am not aware of my peers or betters having that problem. (Maybe it's what happens when you try to study soporific works like MCO. I spent almost all my chess time playing and looking at the games of world champions, and I'm glad I did.)
One unpleasant physical phenomenon I do recall experiencing in a competitive context was a sick, nervous feeling from a sustained adrenalin rush. I don't recall experiencing that during my "original" chess career, but when I returned to the game after a several year absence it was all too noticeable.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.