Philosophical Dialectics: An Essay on Metaphilosophy

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Philosophical Dialectics: An Essay on Metaphilosophy file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Philosophical Dialectics: An Essay on Metaphilosophy book. Happy reading Philosophical Dialectics: An Essay on Metaphilosophy Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Philosophical Dialectics: An Essay on Metaphilosophy at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Philosophical Dialectics: An Essay on Metaphilosophy Pocket Guide.

Metaphilosophy is going beyond our limitations, is expand our inteligence over any cincunstances, is not to have limits and is to be free. The article is badly skewed. Before asking how meta-philosophy is possible, and criticizing it, it should be explained a bit better what it is.

Nicholas Rescher, Philosophical Dialectics: An Essay on Metaphilosophy - PhilPapers

I cannot see a single use of a philosopher outside the traditionally analytic school. Continental philosophical tradition, critical theory, and other writers, thinkers, and critics have meaningful input on this subject which merits documentation as such. The tradition within philosophy, eg. Blackwell's Metaphilosophy , the most prominent metaphilosophical journal, is to not hypenate the term and I do not know any philosphers who do hypenate "metaphilosophy". In the secion on the so-called "linguistic" metaphilosophical stance it says, "Criticised as being vacuous and without relevance, the logical study of meaningful language is in decline in many universities.

I am not someone to delve into debates about the virtues of Contintenal vs. Analytic styles of philosophy, but I don't think this is really what is at heart. The claim as stated expresses that the study of logical form and theories of meaning is in decline, which is simply not true. These form the backbone of the linguistic study of semantics, which is a rapidly growing field of study that has made major scientific advancements since the time of Chomsky.


Furthermore, as a statement about philosophy it is also false. Analytic philosophy, which is associated with the "linguistic turn" is still the dominant trend throughout the English-speaking world. That means it is the trend at the very large majority of universities throughout North America, the UK, and Australia. Colin , 4 October UTC. Seems to me like this article could use a clean-up.

I'll have the necessary time to do the research but only in a month or so - if no-one else is willing at the moment.


In the meantime, any suggestions? Since it was published in , I have taken the liberty of chaning "post war debut" to "book". I've done some reordering of the article, added a few things and removed the stupid reference to linguistic philosophy as being vacuous. The article is still crummy and my additions aren't top notch themselves, but overall I think it's a improvement. Too bad few others seem to be interested in improving the article; considering that it might be a good idea to create a somewhat smaller but better article - something on my to-do list.

Stdbrouw , 28 January UTC. Certainly the first order of business for any metaphilosophy would be a method to demark philosophy from pseudophilosophy. Otherwise what is the point of metaphilosophy? Gkochanowsky talk , 6 December UTC. Metaphilosophy can have other points. Such as illuminating on the various uses of philosophy. Someone might find it more interesting to talk about the use of philosophy than to talk about what distinguishes philosophy from pseudophilosophy. So I think it is a matter of choice or opinion what would be the most important business of metaphilosophy.

So I wouldn't state that it is so that the first order of business for any metaphilosophy would be to find a method to demarcate philosophy from pseudophilosophy.

  • MA Philosophy.
  • The Roommates.
  • Relationship to philosophy!

You must mean that it doesn't make much sense to philosophize about philosophy if you do not even know what counts as philosophy and what doesn't. But I'm inclined to say you can work with the term 'philosophy' without having a precise definition in mind. Since only one article links to that page, and discussion of the merger there has thus been extremely slow, I'm trawling for more input so maybe some consensus can finally be reached there. I'm also going to place a merge proposal template on both articles, and request input from Talk:Philosophy as well.

The material in the article "Definition of philosophy" which now redirects to this article was as below. The definition of philosophy is a difficult matter, and many definitions of philosophy begin by stating its difficulty.

A review of standard reference works suggests that there is a broad agreement among the philosophers who write these reference works, as to what the definition actually is. This article lists the main points of agreement, and points of disagreement where notable. Some describe philosophy as the art of saying, not doing, talking about action, not taking action, theorizing, and not utilizing; the art of being unproductive, not productive. I've integrated the content of definition of philosophy into the body of metaphilosophy and cleaned it up a tad. It still needs tighter integration with the rest of the material here, e.

I'll likely be whittling away at this project for a while but anyone else feel free to jump in and help if you want What is not controversial are the general types of problems included in philosophy. Too dang funny. Gkochanowsky talk , 7 December UTC. This section strikes me as being particularly weak, POV and OR, lacking citations and is largely or wholly duplicates material in the article Progress philosophy.

Imagine a world without philosophy, now imagine what progress it has made based on this 'world'. I think the article really needs some direction.

  • The Great Formosa Hoax.
  • Trinitarischer Symbolismus bei Paul Tillich (German Edition).
  • Personality Psychology!
  • 30 años (y alguno más) con la Selección (Biblioteca del basket Zona131 nº 16) (Spanish Edition).

Most of it is about philosophy, not metaphilosophy. One does not learn much about metaphilosophy. Can anyone help? No great suggestions, unfortunately, but maybe more references to existing metaphilosophical positions are in order? I mildly disagree about metaphiloosphy being the philosophy of philosophy. Being about philosophy does not make metaphilosophy philosophical.

Maybe there is nothing philosophical in metaphilosophy. Nothing of importance, but I would not be so categorical here. What about the philosophy of meta-philosophy? After all how can we trust meta-philosophy on philosophy if we don't study the philosophy of philosophy itself? I think the article has multiple issues, hence the tag. First of all one should learn about the views whether philosophy is a maximal system i. Obviously metaphilosophy claims things to be otherwise and this particular claim should be made clear with references and examples.

Can't we just end up with an endless cycle? For example the study of the philosophy of philosophy Meta-Meta Philosophy and the study of the philosophy on the philosophy of philosophy Meta-Meta-Meta Philosophy , etc, thus making it pointless?

Download options

The article starts with suggesting that 'metaphilosophy' means a discipline about philosophy outside philosophy. Still, this article does use the term 'metaphilosophy' as meaning 'philosophy of philosophy outside philosophy' as is the case in this quote: " In the Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein wrote that there is not a metaphilosophy. But can't we just use metaphilosophy to mean 'philosophy of philosophy' leaving it a question on itself whether it is in or outside philosohy or whether there is philosophy on philosophy outside philosophy AND philosophy on philosophy inside philosophy?

Even though the quote of Wittgenstein that opens the section on 'the methods of philosophy' literally uses the words "the methods of philosophy" I don't think the quote illuminates on the methods of philosophy.

Philosophical Dialectics: An Essay on Metaphilosophy

The quote just shows that Wittgenstein thinks philosophy is only 'meaningful' when it is used to attack traditional philosophy. So the quote shows a hostile stance to philosophy rather than explaining the methods of philosophy. I suggest removing the quote. There is a bit too much Wittgenstein in the article anyway right?

As far as I can see this article replicates much of the material in Philosophy , is generally written like an essay and lacks substantial citations. Maybe it should be merged? In a recent edit Snowded removed this citation:. It proceeds to discuss the whole subject at very great length, as anyone who wishes to look at the article can see for themselves. The fact that an article about metaphilosophy uses the word metaphilosophy in its title doesn't astonish me.

In my opinion, this source is a very suitable one to answer to the "citation needed" request, and Snowded is allowing his prejudice against this entire subject as indicated in his merge request of the above thread to cloud his judgment in this matter. The IEP is a well-established peer-reviewed on-line journal. The source should be restored. Any comments? Brews ohare talk , 10 March UTC. By a metaphilosophy I mean a view of what philosophy is, what philosophy can do, and, especially, what philosophy is for. Metaphilosophy is the philosophical examination of the practice of philosophizing itself.

Its definitive aim is to study the methods of the field in an endeavor to illuminate its promise and prospects. I don't have a lot time to properly comment on everything being discussed here, but two things I'd like to flag:.


In fact besides that, I don't see what else you would expect an article on this subject to discuss, except even more second-order issues about what metaphilosophy itself is and whether or not it exists. On a related note 2 Snowded, you seem to assume or assume that this article assumes that metaphilosophy is not itself a part of philosophy, when that is itself an open question that is mentioned in the article and not settled.

In my view the purpose of this article is primarily as a place for extensive coverage of philosophical views on philosophy itself like its definition, purpose, promise, etc -- the subject matter of metaphilosophy -- and only secondarily for coverage of views of metaphilosophy like whether it exists or whether it's a part of philosophy or apart from philosophy, etc.

I've just made an effort to better separate those two things in the article.