What is Analytic Philosophy?

by Hans-Johann Glock

Analytic philosophy is roughly a hundred years old, and it is now the dominant force within Western philosophy. Interest in its historical development is increasing, but there has hitherto been no sustained attempt to elucidate what it currently amounts to, and how it differs from so-called 'continental' philosophy. In this rich and wide-ranging book, Hans Johann Glock argues that analytic philosophy is a loose movement held together both by ties of influence and by various 'family resemblances'. He considers the pros and cons of various definitions of analytic philosophy, and tackles the methodological, historiographical and philosophical issues raised by such definitions. Finally, he explores the wider intellectual and cultural implications of the notorious divide between analytic and continental philosophy. His book is an invaluable guide for anyone seeking to understand analytic philosophy and how it is practised.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Politics, Education, Logic

306 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 2008

Reviews

[Manuel · Rating 5 out of 5]

"What is Analytic Philosophy?" provides a great survey of the history, the doctrines, the divisions and contributions of analytic philosophy. As someone "trained" in this tradition, I thought I knew how to define analytic philosophy. It turns out, however, that it is not so easy once you stop to think about it. Surprisingly enough, it is akin to the concepts of justice, science, or time, which everyone uses quite capably, but which turn elusive once one wants to define them with any rigour. What I took away from this wonderful book is that analytic philosophy cannot be simply characterised by doctrine (e.g. language will dissolve all philosophical problems), by method (e.g. conceptual analysis), or by style (e.g. clarity). Rather, it is better seen as a conversation initiated by Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein, which carries on to this day mostly among philosophers in the Anglophone world, although it has been spreading to parts of Europe and Latin America. The conversation --going both ways among the interlocutors, thereby excluding other traditions-- has no single subject matter; among other things, it ranges from logic and philosophy of language, to the philosophy of science, logic, and philosophy of mind. To be sure, "clarity" (the main thing that springs to mind whenever a student wants to describe this philosophy as against the 'continental' variety) is held as one of the highest virtues by analytic philosophers, but it is not always practiced (see Wittgenstein) and is becoming rarer today. And the assumption that all, or at least most, of the literature produced is clear, rigorous, and precise has created an illusion from which contemporary analytic philosophers must free themselves; otherwise, the discipline will become more insulated than it is at present. In all, this is a great book for those who want to take a good look at the philosophical movement that shaped their formation as a philosopher. If you ever thought analytic philosophy was simply synonymous with good philosophy, this book is a real eye-opener.

[Ehsan Ebrahimian · Rating 4 out of 5]

اگر کسی به موضوع فلسفه علاقه مند باشه کتاب جالبی هستش، اگر به ادبیات فلسفه تحلیلی وارد باشه این کتاب هیجان انگیز هستش. ترجمه ی این کتاب البته خیلی گویا نیست (از جنس ترجمه دانشنامه فلسفه استنفورد) و زیادی سعی کرده به متن اصلی وفادار باشه، جملات طولانی با منطق انگلیسی و نه فارسی! اما از این موضوع اگر بگذریم کتاب خیلی بصیرت بخش و خوب هستش در مورد فلسفه تحلیلی و با توجه به این که چندان قدیمی نیست دید بهتری میده نسبت به این که الان چه چیزی در فلسفه تحلیلی در جریانه.

[jeremiah]

Putnam: "...analytic philosophy was no longer characterized by a set of issues or new and exciting approaches to these issues, but by the advice that teachers gave to students as to what those students must not read."

[r0b · Rating 4 out of 5]

‘At a time when religious ideologies and economic dogmas are ruling the planet with scant regard to either logic or science, analytic philosophy might even have beneficial effects in a wider sphere, provided that it is wielded to slay a few intellectual monsters.’

There are no longer ‘intellectual monsters’, only monsters.

[James Klagge · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a sort of extended Socratic examination of the title question. Glock works with a set of a dozen or so clear instances of analytic philosophers, and several who are not, and then he considers several possible ways of defining the term (and distinguishing it from “continental philosophy”). Proposed definitions are tested with counterexamples and modified or rejected accordingly. But whereas Socrates’ interlocutors generally run out of patience for the discussion after 20 pages, Glock keeps going till he’s done! (In this regard the book reminds me of The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia, in which we get an extended Socratic examination of “game.”) Glock did a great job—he is intimately familiar with analytic philosophy in all its Anglo and European varieties. And he is also impressively familiar with Continental philosophy even though it is not his thing.
Glock ends up opting for a Wittgensteinian answer to his question by opting for a family-resemblance account of the term, using some substantive and some historical considerations. He considers Bolzano the great grandfather, Frege the grandfather, and early Wittgenstein the father of analytic philosophy. I’m particularly interested in whether the later Wittgenstein is still an analytic philosopher. Glock considers him a borderline case. One problem I see is that later Wittgenstein focuses on addressing the temperament of his audience—and this is a purpose that puts him outside the mainstream of analytic philosophy, and maybe outside of philosophy altogether. Glock doesn’t consider this aspect of the later Wittgenstein.
In addition to the conceptual adjudication, Glock also considers some issues about the value of analytic and of continental philosophy. I was surprised that he never mentioned Heidegger’s association with the Nazis and what if anything that meant. I knew Marjorie Grene pretty well over 20 years in her retirement. She had attended Heidegger’s lectures for a year in Germany in the 1930s, and she was one of the analytic philosophers who knew continental philosophy quite well. Her final verdict was that Heidegger was a corrupting influence in philosophy, and she refused to do independent studies on his work. On the other hand she approved of Merleau-Ponty.

[Alexander]

While he doesn't provide a comprehensive history of analytic philosophy, Glock does a terrific job of providing an answer to the title question. A unique and very enjoyable book.

[Paige McLoughlin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I studied Analytic Philosophy as an undergrad. I signed up for it by chance and learned to really enjoy it. I liked its humility and honesty. I know it has some faults, being ahistorical and allergic to metaphysics and rather scholastic. Depending on your perspective, these are either features or bugs. It does strike me as a very conservative and masculine endeavor, a tough guy's philosophy. When I was in denial about being trans years ago, it was an appealing denial of my femininity, often what trans women refer to as the "Denial Beard," in other words, taking on masculine pretense to deny reality. Anyway, I still appreciate its reputation for clear thinking and exposition, whatever my gender. This book covers the strengths and weaknesses of this influential philosophical school of the twentieth century.

[Rene Stein · Rating 5 out of 5]

Podrobná a zajímavá analýza (no pun intended!) toho, co je a hlavně co není charakteristické pro analytickou filozofii. Glock odvádí skvělou práci v odmitnutí:

1) Geolingvistického pojeti analytické filozofie a ostrých demarkačních čar mezi kontinentální a analytickou filozofií.

2) Za nedostatečně distinktivní v definicích analytické filozofie považuje i:

a) Důraz na racionální argumentaci/logický kalkulus.

b) Sebepojetí analytické filosofie jako pokračování (přírodní) vědy jinými (nebo u některých představitelů analytické filozofie dokonce stejnými) prostředky.

c) Naturalismus.

d) Analýzu v konvenčním slova smyslu.

e) Ahistorismus, fóbie z historie nebo naopak "anachronismus" analytické filozofie.

f) (Nepravdivá) tvrzení o ignorování politických a etických otázek představiteli analytické filozofie.

V kapitolách 8 a 9 popíše, jak analytickou filozofii a její poředstavitele vií sám, a i když kritika v knize míří hlavně na poeticko-žvatlavý proud tradiční filosofie, Glock v kapitole 9 podotýká, že i analytická filozofie je v současné době v krizi. I tak je ale pořád na tom lépe než "tradiční" filozofie, která přes stále obskurnější projevy médií, skrze něž exkluzivně promlouvá Bytí a hlavně Nicota, balancuje mezi nevýznamností a zapomněním.


"But the genuinely continental and original voices in that field, in so far as any remain, strike me to be as obscure as ever. It also seems to me that their intellectual impact is on the wane. If analytic philosophy is in crisis, continental philosophy is in serious trouble. To modify Willy Brandt’s old joke about capitalism and socialism: Analytic philosophy is staring into the abyss. And what does it see? Continental philosophy!"

Glock, Hans-Johann (2008-04-03). What is Analytic Philosophy? (Kindle Locations 5803-5806). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

A nakonec Glock zdůrazňuje, v čem spočívá význam původního "analytického" obratu ve filozofii.

"One remedy for the ills of current analytic philosophy may simply lie in recovering some of the virtues of earlier stages. A cherished self-image of analytic philosophy notwithstanding, the inspirational figures from its past have not bequeathed us a series of indisputable demonstrations or knock-down arguments. But they have shown us how one can question deep-seated assumptions and resolve tempting confusions in a way that is striking, innovative and illuminating; they have also shown us how one can broach fundamental and complex problems in a manner that is clear, profound and honest. At its best, analytic philosophy conforms to Russell’s ideal of ‘cold steel in the hand of passion’ (Monk 1996a: 262). At a time when religious ideologies and economic dogmas are ruling the planet with scant regard to either logic or science, analytic philosophy might even have beneficial effects in a wider sphere, provided that it is wielded to slay a few intellectual monsters.

Glock, Hans-Johann (2008-04-03). What is Analytic Philosophy? (Kindle Locations 5825-5832). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition. "