Hello /his/ I am tasked with writing an essay criticizing the

Bump 1/3

Bump 2/3

Last bump 3/3

Pls halp

Another day another try! 1/3

>>2401267
>What would you do with this assignment?

I would drop out and go to trade school. Seriously OP, you're wasting your life.

I'd love to help but I only studied kripke up to on rules and private language and some modal logic here and there.

You should contact some professors of other universities or try to get in touch with kripke himself (I tried, didn't work out).

Are you going to use Gellner of words and things? (I don't like that cunt)

>>2403155
Thanks dude but studying philosophy right now is pretty much a passion project for me. I have a bachelors in physics already and will go further down that path if I do decide that I don't want to pursue philosophy further.


>>2403324
Hey, thanks for dropping in. I had pretty much given up on this thread already.

So far I am not sure what secondary literature to use. I am pretty much just scouring the internet for info currently.

I didn't know Gellner before you mentioned him but as far as I can tell the book you are referring to is more of a critique of ordinary language philosophy than analytic philosophy of language in general, no?

>>2403155
Thanks dude but studying philosophy right now is pretty much a passion project for me. I have a bachelors in physics already and will go further down that path if I do decide that I don't want to pursue philosophy further.


>>2403324
Hey, thanks for dropping in. I had pretty much given up on this thread already.

So far I am not sure what secondary literature to use. I am pretty much just scouring the internet for info currently.

I didn't know Gellner before you mentioned him but as far as I can tell the book you are referring to is more of a critique of ordinary language philosophy than analytic philosophy of language in general, no?

>>2403368
Yes, you are correct. He attacks in particular the philosophy of Wittgenstein.

Are you just meant to criticise all of analytic philosophy of language and it's progression? That seems rather strange as the differing schools within the field wholy disagree with one another.

I doubt I can help much beyond name-dropping as I haven't read Kripke's naming and necessity.

If you have a specific question, I might be able to answer it.

>>2403372
You pretty much restated my problem right there. The lecturer didn't give me more to go on than that I should critique the part of analytic philosophy of language that Naming and Necessity is apparently paradigmatic for.

The biggest problem I have is that I don't know what paradigma he is referring to exactly. I asked him and he pretty much told me that it is supposed to be an open question so we have lots of space to formulate our own criticisms.

Do you maybe know of any criticisms of the philosophy of language that argue that many philosophical issues that some philosophers of language tried solving via the analysis of language actually can not be solved in that manner? Examples would be the mind/body problem or the question of necessary and kontingent properties, both of which Kripke adresses in Naming and Necessity as well.

Another possible avenue of critique could possibly be that at the foundations of his arguments he always cites his "metalinguistic intuitions" as being the deciding factors on wether or not a theory fails or succeeds in light of the given example. My idea is that these metalinguistic intuitions might not suffice to support his arguments as they can, for example, differ from person to person. Whadya think?

bumpudumpa 2/3 for today

>>2403376
I can't give you examples of philosophers who adequately attack ordinary language philosophy (I hate that term) as I fully and with complete conviction believe that no one has been able to defeat Wittgenstein. I can give you examples of logical positivists being btfo but Kripke isn't a logical positivist so that wouldn't work.

Would you like videos that explain kripkes other stuff like on rules and private language? Perhaps I can find some stuff for you. Give me an hour.

>>2403376
I can't give you examples of philosophers who adequately attack ordinary language philosophy (I hate that term) as I fully and with complete conviction believe that no one has been able to defeat Wittgenstein. I can give you examples of logical positivists being btfo but Kripke isn't a logical positivist so that wouldn't work.

Would you like videos that explain kripkes other stuff like on rules and private language? Perhaps I can find some relevant stuff for you. Give me an hour.

My tradition is Wittgensteinian so I can give some insight into such sceptical problems like mind/body or the lack thereof a problem at all.

(I have probably been a terrible help but I'm on my phone you see)

>>2403420
I doubt that the videos will help me much with this paper but in the grand scheme of things some more sources of info can't hurt.

Send em my way!

>>2403422
I'll be with you in a few hours.

last bump today!