Timeline for How does Epistemology show that it's not a language game?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2019 at 18:44 | vote | accept | Max Wallace | ||
| May 28, 2019 at 19:12 | comment | added | Max Wallace | @JonathanCender I agree, there is no "given" basis for stating "foundational problem", but philosophy may be able to provide that basis. I think I broadly understand the pragmatist perspective put forth by Dewey and others. I haven't pursued reading their original works because while I am sympathetic to Pragmatism it seems less likely than other areas to address my concerns. I am moreso trying to understand how contemporary epistemology regards the "bootstrapping" problem of giving an account of how doing philosophy can lead to something like truth or knowledge. | |
| May 19, 2019 at 20:19 | comment | added | Jonathan Cender | In a similar vein, "foundational problem" is language, so what philosophical basis is there for stating the phrase? John Dewey addresses "doing philosophy with language" in Essays on Experimental Logic by saying that language, with everything else including philosophy of language, is inextricably "experiential" (I paraphrase and simplify a lengthy introduction). A consequence of experience in Dewey's sense is that "foundation" is not necessary for "doing philosophy with language" and doing so leads to avoidable problems. "Experience" is normally not well understood by Dewey's critics. | |
| May 16, 2019 at 8:30 | comment | added | alanf | "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch discusses the use of language in the context of epistemology in chapter 7, but you should read chapter 3 first. | |
| May 15, 2019 at 0:32 | history | edited | Max Wallace | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| May 11, 2019 at 21:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1127317615742017536 | ||
| May 11, 2019 at 6:30 | answer | added | Conifold | timeline score: 7 | |
| May 10, 2019 at 6:18 | comment | added | Max Wallace | @Conifold thanks for your comment! I'll try to clarify "doing philosophy with language", please let me know if it's still confusing. I think it's an open question whether epistemology must involve language or whether experiences themselves are enough. But language is still necessary when communicating that experience to others. Maybe it's an "afterthought" for the person writing. But I think it's still relevant for everyone else. Language seems necessary to say anything in philosophy; my premise is that the possibility of progress through saying things must be addressed first. Does that help? | |
| May 10, 2019 at 5:59 | comment | added | Conifold | If you are looking "for a philosophy that includes the problem of doing philosophy itself" and ""meaning" rather than "truth""phenomenology comes to mind. Husserl even used similar foundational language. But "doing philosophy with language" is confusing in this context. Why would epistemology involve language rather than the experience itself, directly, with language as an imperfect communication medium, and an afterthought? The linguistic turn was largely a turn away from meaning towards extensional truth values and language games. | |
| May 10, 2019 at 1:18 | history | asked | Max Wallace | CC BY-SA 4.0 |