What sort of things are going on philosophy of language these days? What are topics of discussion? Any Christians doing any work?

__________________
Steven Nemes
Phoenix, AZ

Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered - C.S. Lewis

Discourse analysis seems to be all the rage these days. I have to say it looks very impressive. I have been impressed with the exegetical conclusions reached. The main book is The Grammar of Discourse, by Robert Longacre (who also wrote a very technical, very stimulating commentary on the Joseph narrative).

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Mmm. $80 is kinda pricey.

Anything simple, beginner-friendly stuff?

Yes. I highly recommend Ayn Rand's 'Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology'.

I ran into the Philosophy of Language stuff when I took philosophy in college. I thought it was not true to what philosophy is. It undermines the problem of universals problems while claiming to be the answer. Especially when it comes to the false Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy. Her book does a great job of explaining how we learn, use, and apply words.


"The Cognitive Role of Concepts" -

"...All this is accompanied by the complaint that 'Nature doesn't tell us which choice to make.' and purports to demonstrate that concepts represent arbitrary groupings formed by human (social) whim, that they are not determined by objective criteria and have no cognitive validity.
What these doctrines do demonstrate is the failure to grasp the cognitive role of concepts-i.e., the fact that the requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of concept-formation."

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

Would the study of the philosophy of language include studying about the nature of equivocal, univocal, or analogical predication between God and man?

__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA

Don't bother with Ayn Rand if you want to study philosophy. Virtually no philosopher takes her work seriously. And what do you mean the "false Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy"? Now I can understand if your concerns are those of Quine's, but Rand didn't do anything to even remotely bother someone who held to that distinction. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but Rand is rubbish (bodering on analytically so )

__________________
^Brian Lanier^
OPC
Philosophy, SFSU
Main Area of Interest: Religious Epistemology

The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy I'm referring to is the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions, just like what Quine attacked. And yes, her work would bother somebody who makes those distinctions.

And don't worry, I have nothing good to say about modern philosophy. And no philosopher takes her work seriously because they don't want to admit they are speaking great swelling words of vanity. Philosophy is supposed to be the love of wisdom. The moderns get all hung up on epistemology. With no firm foundation, they get hung up on secondary issues and don't deal with reality. ie, they forget that reality is. Or as Ayn Rand once said, "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed"

Let me explain further. Here's a quote from Wikipedia on the Philosophy page-

"The themes of ancient philosophy are: understanding the fundamental causes and principles of the universe; explaining it in an economical and uniform way; the epistemological problem of reconciling the diversity and change of the natural universe, with the possibility of obtaining fixed and certain knowledge about it; questions about things which cannot be perceived by the senses, such as numbers, elements, universals, and gods; the analysis of patterns of reasoning and argument; the nature of the good life and the importance of understanding and knowledge in order to pursue it; the explication of the concept of justice, and its relation to various political systems.

In this period the crucial features of the philosophical method were established: a critical approach to received or established views, and the appeal to reason and argumentation."


Now thats what Philosophy is supposed to be about!

The moderns approach is "the notion that philosophical problems could and should be solved by attention to logic and language." Logic and Language? That's not philosophy. Aristotelian logic lays the foundation for proofs. The Law of Identity, the Law of Non-contradiction and the Law of Excluded Middle. The third law has been questioned by secular logicians and philosophers. The Law of Excluded Middle means that there is no middle ground. Something must be either true or false. There is no “maybe?" Something can be unknown, at which point we are uncertain of its truth-value, but it can never true and false, or, possibly both. It must be one or the other, otherwise, we just don’t know. That's where Ayn Rand comes in. She says that we can have "fixed and certain knowledge". Whether or not one agrees with her conclusions, her method is refreshing.

Now if someone disagrees with what real philosophy is supposed to be from my quote above, of course they will have problems with somebody who does.

Take the Bible for example. Do we take it on faith? Do we believe its true? Or are there good Objective reasons to know that it's from God. (The Jesus Seminar people come to mind when they said "I believe the Bible is true even though all the evidence is against it!")

Look, there are plenty of people in "modern" philosophy working on the very questions that you seem to find important; you can study them without having to rely on a hack philosopher, oh, and an *atheist* philosopher at that. She just doesn't employ the rigor that is expected from professional philosophers, not to mention that she was just plain confused (and wrong) about a number of issues. The quickest way to find yourself not taken seriously in a philosophical discussion is to espouse the views of Ayn Rand.

Also, I'm not sure why you think that Aristotle settled the issues in logic. What philosophy of logic books have you read? I'm going to guess none, since if you had, you'd realize that that is an astonishing claim.

Umm, I don't have to be Counselor Troi to pick up those emotions. I didn't say that Aristotle settled the issues, but Aristotle laid the foundations for proofs. Aristotelian logic is almost a byword today.

I've used Hurley's 'Logic' 3rd edition when I was discipled by a Pastor who had a Phd in Philosophy. I spent years reading philosophical works with him, mostly what is called Ancient philosophy (c. 600 B.C.–c. A.D. 500). Our philosophical discussions would of made Socrates proud. Later, when I was in college, 'Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking' by Merrilee H Salmon was the textbook I used. I also had to read the moderns for my classes in philosophy.

I drove the instructor bonkers because I had to debunk them. And in order to do that I had to understand them. But I'll never forget the time during our weekly meetings when he asked about my philosophy studies and I mentioned Plato. He got this smile on his face and said "Ahh Plato! Now that's a long forgotten friend that I haven't read since..." That surprised me because he was so wrapped up in the current trends that he had forgotten the roots of philosophy. And told me so.

That's good that you had the opportunity to work with Hurley's text; it's a great text (actually much better now that it's in its 10th ed!). The question (it was rather rhetorical, I know) that I asked was about philosophy of logic books, issues of metalogic. Aristotelian logic did lay *a* foundation for deductive proofs, but the point I was making was that it is not a sufficient foundation--it is quite limited in fact. And yes, certain philosophers of logic have questioned A v ~A *and* ~(A & ~A) (excluded middle and LNC), *but* virtual every modern logic textbook utilitizes them as theorems.

Speech-Act Theory (J.L. Austin) is still quite popular and has become appropriated by evangelicals in a defense of infallibility in recent years.

__________________
Jeremy Ellis
Member of the Village Church of Bartlett
Bartlett, IL

You'll probably want to take a philosophy of language class before jumping into this, but Peter Ludlow's Readings in the philosophy of LanguageReadings in the philosophy of language [WorldCat.org] has most of the major articles over the past century. You can view it on GoogleBooks here.
Do read Kripke as well.

__________________
Patrick
Covenant (OPC), Brighton, MI