Philosophical Analysis: It's Development Between the Two World Wars

by J.O. Urmson

Reprinted.....from corrected sheets of the first edition 1958, 1960, 1965.

The author traces the development of the views of analytical philosophers about the nature of philosophy between the two world wars. First the positions of Russell in his writings on logical atomism and of Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logicophilosophicus are examined, together with developments of the atomistic position made in the late twenties and early thirties by such philosophers as Ramsey, Stebbing, and Wisdom. The shift of interest to logical positivism, and the reasons for it, are then discussed, together with the consequential changes in the conception of philosophical analysis. Finally a view of analysis proleptic of post-war philosophy is shown to have emerged in the late thirties.

The main purpose of this book is to give a concise account of some very interesting philosophical developments. But it is designed both to provide an historical background for those interested in contemporary philosophy and also to facilitate an approach to recent philosophy by those to whom it is a perplexing mystery.

Genres: Philosophy

202 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1956

Reviews

[AC · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a gem. I've never run across any of Urmson's books on Aristotle, so assume that they're worthless. But this is a purely historical treatment of a philosophical movement (the origins and development of Analytical philosophy - really starting with the Tractatus - that itself is fundamentally ahistorical and is rarely treated historically. I *highly* recommend it.

[AC · Rating 5 out of 5]

Apparently out-of-print -- brilliant -- a short and nuanced history of the analytical movement, primarily Russell and the early Wittgenstein. Can't recommend highly enough.

The ISBN, btw, is 0-19-500277-6

[r0b · Rating 4 out of 5]

‘Metaphysicians may be muddled and may consistently use misleading language, but it’s no use simply to dismiss what they say as nonsense; one must patiently examine what they are doing, and perhaps it will not be wholly bad. The verification principle may be muddled and be bad in so far as it suggests that we should not examine what metaphysicians do; but it also, in however warped a manner, draws attention to the fundamental difference between science and metaphysics.’

This is excellent. Very interesting and most of it pretty accessible. Much improved my understanding of logical positivism and analytic philosophy. And, while I still would much prefer to read continental philosophy, it really gave me more respect for that area of philosophy and so to be less dismissive of it.

[Kenneth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Assigned reading for the course in modern (20th century) philosophy I took in my junior year of college, which concentrated on the British analytic tradition, (ignoring most Continental developments like Existentialism).