There is no place for ‘isms’ in philosophy. The alleged party issues are never the important philosophic questions, and to be affiliated to a recognizable party is to be the slave of a non-philosophic prejudice in favour of a (usually non-philosophic) article of belief. To be a ’so-and-so ist’ is to be philosophically frail.
– Gilbert Ryle, ‘Taking Sides in Philosophy’ (1937)
Agreed
Dear Tim,
I think I agree partially with this quote, yet I also believe that such schools or parties, such as the ordinary language philosophy, working under the same banner, take these approaches further, and thus exhaust such methodologies. I think it is a fine line though. Thanks for your blog; I have learnt so much from it, and it has provoked much thought. All the best.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your comments, and glad to hear you have been enjoying the blog! Wasn’t there talk of you starting up blogging as well?
I agree with your comment, and Ryle himself was associated with the ordinary language philosophy and people like J.L.Austin et al. However, I don’t know if you would say they exhausted this idea. I think the jury is still out on their project, and it’s fruitfulness as a metaphilosophical position.