4 found
Order:
See also
Sally Parker-Ryan
University of Texas at Arlington
  1.  21
    Reconsidering Ordinary Language Philosophy: Malcolm’s Ordinary Language Argument.Sally Parker-Ryan - 2010 - Essays in Philosophy 11 (2):123-149.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  2. Ordinary Language Philosophy.Sally Parker-Ryan - 2012 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    For Ordinary Language philosophy, at issue is the use of the expressions of language, not expressions in and of themselves. So, at issue is not, for example, ordinary versus (say) technical words; nor is it a distinction based on the language used in various areas of discourse, for example academic, technical, scientific, or lay, slang or street discourses – ordinary uses of language occur in all discourses. It is sometimes the case that an expression has distinct uses within distinct discourses, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3. Linguistic Analysis: Ayer and Early Ordinary Language Philosophy.Sally Parker-Ryan - 2020 - In Adam Tamas Tuboly (ed.), The Historical and Philosophical Significance of Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic. Cham, Switzerland: pp. 123 - 149.
    The ‘between Wars’ period in England in the early twentieth century was extraordinary, philosophically. It was marked by a profusion of new, controversial, and revolutionary ideas. Developments in formal logic, the rise of the method of ‘analysis’, and logical atomism were already changing the face of philosophy in England. From this mix emerged two distinctive views about language and its connection to philosophical methodology: one championing the concept of an ideal language; and one rejecting this and favoring appeal to ordinary (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. Reconsidering Ordinary Language Philosophy: Malcolm’s (Moore’s) Ordinary Language Argument.Sally Parker-Ryan - 2010 - Essays in Philosophy 11 (2):123-149.
    The ‘Ordinary Language’ philosophy of the early 20th century is widely thought to have failed. It is identified with the broader so-called ‘linguistic turn’, a common criticism of which is captured by Devitt and Sterelny (1999), who quip: “When the naturalistic philosopher points his finger at reality, the linguistic philosopher discusses the finger.” (p 280) The implication is that according to ‘linguistic’ philosophy, we are not to study reality or truth or morality etc, but the meaning of the words ‘reality’, (...)
    Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark