Talk:Ordinary language philosophy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
Could we please have an article on Gilbert Ryle? Please?
We should most likely revise this article to include mention of the dispute about the early Wittgenstein's views... personally I think that to say Wittgenstein thought language had to be revised is completely wrong. His early philosophy is very different from his later work, it is primarily concerned with the limits of language and the nature of propositions, but it does not exclude poetry, metaphor and other forms of language as unimportant, in fact there is a good case for saying that Wittgenstein thought these were the MOST important. Recall his reading of poetry to the Vienna Circle in an attempt to get them to understand his work... which they notoriously failed in.
[edit] Revamp...
This article needs to be extended and elaborated upon by someone who knows enough about ordinary language philosophy. While not bad as it is, I think this article should be redone, and extended, so as to describe ordinary language philosophy in much more depth, and the various philosophers associated with it (insofar as the ideas are pertinent to the subject). Is anyone willing to do this? Kevin L. 06:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Archive?
Is there a link missing to archived discussion? I thought I had entered discussion of the failure of ordinary language to describe the quantum world, but I don't see it or a link to an archive. David R. Ingham 05:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
