• Shawn
    12.6k
    @Banno says (see) that the linguistic turn is in fact only something we take granted nowadays as a method of doing philosophy, with the unstated goal of linguistic philosophy being clarity of thought and lesser confusion between participants of a conversation or discussion.

    Now, I see no reason to think otherwise; but, if this is in fact true, and having already read some of Richard Rorty's thought, I feel compelled to claim that the linguistic turn contributed to old pragmatic thought.

    Does this make sense to you?

    Because pragmatism never really stood out in philosophy after William James and Dewey; but, if the above is true, then isn't credit due to pragmatism more than already presumed nowadays?
  • Dharmi
    264
    I said elsewhere that where philosophy is traditionally about the nature of truth, reality and good, Postmodern philosophy is the abolition of philosophy.

    Take that how you will.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    Why a new thread?Banno

    That really couldn't really be answered, instead of this one, Banno.

    Like, who's going to verify such a statement that the linguistic turn is indeed dead?

    If you prefer here then all the better?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment