This serves as an introduction to the subject Philosophy of Language.

1. Analytic vs. Continental
Philosophy
By Kile Jones

2. What’s in a name?
What’s in a name? That which we call a
rose by any other name would smell
as sweet.”
--Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
“A riddle of symbols” -Wittgenstein
“An explanation of concepts” --Russell
“Many unneeded problems” --Ryle

3. Typical Definitions
(difference in methodology by C.G. Prado and N. Levy)
Analytic Continental
Focused on analysis (analysis of
thought, language, logic, knowledge,
mind, etc.)
Focused on synthesis (synthesis of
modernity with history, individuals with
society, and speculation with
application)
Solves philosophical problems by
reducing them to their parts and to the
relations in which these parts stand
Addresses large questions in a
synthetic of integrative way; considers
particular issues to be ‘parts of the
larger unities’ and dealt with only when
fitted into those unities
Problem-solving activity Closer to the humanistic traditions and
to literature and art; tends to be more
‘politically engaged’
This distinctions can be “overgeneralizations,” however, these two
camps are clearly divergent in emphasis, trajectories, motives, goals,
and tools and must be understood in light of their independent and
differing traditions. (Jones)

4. The Beginning of the Split
 Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
-constructed a theory of knowledge to
explain how ‘synthetic cognition is
possibly a priori’* this divided the two
realms: the noumenal* (things in
themselves) and the phenomenal*
(things as they appear to us)
-there are things that can be known in
appearance and things that are beyond
any possible experience/ unknowable
(e.g. God, immortality, freedom)

5. Reactions on Kant’s two
realms
 Hegel (1770-1831)
-there can be no division between the noumenal
and the phenomenal since he believed that all of
reality was united in one Idea*
-there could be no epistemic chasm between the
knowable and unknowable, for there’s nothing
outside the Idea left to be unknown
-became the precursor/inspiration of the traditional
continental emphasis on grand overarching
narratives and the inclusion of everything
(literature, history, art, etc.) into the problem of
philosophy
-dominated Europe and Britain’s leading
philosophers by the late 19th Century (Bradley,
McTaggart, Green)

6. Reactions on Kant’s synthetic a
priori
 G.E. Moore: insisted on the
importance of analysing concepts
 Russell: developed a reductionist
approach to knowledge called logical
atomism and a general focus on
particular logical problems in
opposition to a totalizing enterprise
 Mach: joining metaphysics and
epistemology is hazardous and
‘monstrous’

7. Vienna Circle
 Or the Ernst Mach Society supported Mach
and aimed to:
- debunk Kan’t ‘synthetic a priori’
- eradicate metaphysics* (Carnap)
- reclaim the supremacy of logic in philosophy
(Gödel)
- linguistic conventionalism (Waismann)
They made the Humean distinction between a
priori (non-observable) and a posteriori
(dependent on observation) truth; and they
said that the only truths are either tautological
(true by definition) or empirical (verified by
observation)

8. Heidegger and Wittgenstein
Widen the Split
 Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)
-constructed his theories of ontology*:
philosophy is, and should be, essentially
ontology, a “universal phenomenological
ontology” (vs. Vienna Circle’s view that
“philosophy is mainly an epistemological
project”)
-for him Being preceds knowledge, and that
phenomena (contents of experience) must be
studies prior to any logical catergorization or
interpretation
“free philosophy from logic” (Matthews)
“anti-analytic”

9.  Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)
-shifted the emphasis in analytic philosophy to philosophy
of language
-developed a theory which saw propositions as logical
pictures of states of affairs in the world, sentences were
only meaningful if they painted logical pictures
-destroyed metaphysics and God-talk, considering these
as “nonsense” (along with Carnap and the Vienna
Circle)
-saw analysis of language as a tool whereby
‘philosophical pseudo-problems’ could be solved
-conceptual or logical problems were mistakes about
language:
-stepping beyond the limits of language
-semantically misguided statements that confused
the logic of language
-can be dissolved by an analysis of the propositions
in question

10. Existentialism and its Effect on
Continental Philosophy
 Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)
popularised ‘phenomenological ontology’
or existentialism: man is inescapably free
and inescapably responsible for his
actions (picking up Heidegger’s Dasein)
 Albert Camus (1913-1960) popularised
embracing absurdity in our existential
state
No longer is continental philosophy
engaged in a totalizing project (Hegel),
but on individualism ( a distrust in power
monopoly due to WWII)

11. Logical Positivism and its Effect
on Analytic Philosophy
 Bertrand Russell developed ‘logical analysis’
as a rejection of all religious dogma and
metaphysics and the discovery that many
questions, formerly obscured by the fog of
metaphysics, can be answered with precision
 ‘logical analysis’ was to focus on logical
issues, philosophical problems and
epistemology with the tools of scientific
testing and procedure (avoiding speculative
metaphysics)
 -the rise of analytic philosophy marked the
end of Kant’s philosophy in Europe; logical
positivism brought the thoughts of the Vienna
Circle to fruition while decisively framing the
focus of analytic philosophy

12. Postmodernism as Modern
Continental Philosophy
 In Europe there was a rise of a general
trend of skeptical, anti-authoritarian
philosophy or “postmodernism”:
◦ Jacques Derrida’s “deconstructionism”
◦ Michele Foucault’s examination of issues of
government control, madness and sexuality
◦ Budrillard’s questions on hyper-reality and
simulacra
◦ Vattimo’s resurrection of nihilism
Postmodernism’s task is to deconstruct
absolute views of reality, truth, value and
meaning.

13.  Postmodernism vs. German Idealism
◦ Overarching systems of meaning results
in disappointment of hope
 Postmodernism vs. Analytic
Philosophy
 Parts of analytic philosophy are too
optimistic and overly self-satisfied (trust in
logic and science can be seen as ignoring
the big issues of meaning and existence
 Postmodernism can now be seen as
furthering continental philosophy for
continuing many of its classical
traditions

14. Philosophy of Mind as Modern
Analytic Philosophy
 Philosophy of mind became one of the main
concerns of analytic philosophy in the late 20th
Century:
 Hilary Putnam: one of the great pioneers of
modern philosophy of mind, founder of
functionalism (a theory which analyses mental
states in terms of their function) and multiple
realizability (posits that differing types of physical
entities could experience the same mental state
if there were the right organisational similarities)
 Donald Davidson: “non-reductive physicalism”
(only physical objects can cause physical effects,
but the mind is not entirely reducible to the
physical brain
 David Chalmers: the mind cannot be reducible to
the physical brain because of various
hypothetical arguments, including zombies

15. Summary:
Two distinct responses to Kant’s metaphysical
and epistemological theories:
1.Hegel –rejected Kant’s 2-tiered world by
monism
 Heidegger- translated Hegel’s idealist ontology into
phenomenology by placing strict emphasis on
being-in-the-world
 Existentialism adopted phenomenology and added
issues of existence, freedom, angst and absurdity
 Postmodernism attacks absolutist views of truth,
historical meta-narratives, idealistic metaphysics
and linguistic/semantic realism
Thus, Continental philosophy started with
German idealism, which was translated to
phenomenology, reconstructed in
existentialism, and is still in Postmodernism.

16. 2.Vienna circle- rejected Kant’s synthetic a
priori by dividing what can be known into
tautologies and empirically verifiable data
 Wittgenstein- emphasized analysis of language;
anti-metaphysics; language must mirror observable
nature and nature along, if it is to be considered
meaningful
 Logical Positivism continued the analytic tradition;
Russell and Ayer constructed theories of knowledge
and methods of logical analysis
 Modern Philosophy of Mind incorporated analytic
thinking with biology, neuroscience, and physics
Thus, analytic philosophy started as a reaction to
Kant’s epistemology in the Vienna Circle,
picked up its linguistic impetus through
Wittgenstein, became strictly formulated by
Logical Positivists and others, and continues
strongly today in Philosophy of Mind, among
other disciplines.

17. What’s the challenge for us?
 Strike a balance between the two schools of
thought,
Neil Levy writes:
“could hope to combine the strengths of each:
to forge a kind of philosophy with the
historical awareness of continental
philosophy and the rigor of analytic
philosophy.”
Kile Jones writes:
“The balance between love and knowledge, the
knowing and the doing of the good, is the
philosopher’s ideal state, and the promised
land to which the modern sage must set her
eyes.”

18. Why choose Analytic Philosophy
as the direction for this
Philosophy of Language class?
 To strike a balance: Ateneo Philosophy
tradition is predominantly Continental:
◦ Introduction to Philosophy: Existentialism of
Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard, Frankl
◦ Philosophy of the Human Person: Heidegger’s
Dasein
◦ Moral Philosophy: Kant’s synthetic a priori
◦ Metaphysics: Ontological Questions, Heidegger
◦ Modern Philosophy: Hegel
◦ Socio-pol Philosophy: Foucault
◦ Philosophy of Religion: St. Thomas

19.  Only in Philosophy of Language can
we be introduced and acquainted with
the Analytic Philosophical Tradition:
◦ Focused on analysis (analysis of thought,
language, logic, knowledge, mind, etc.)
◦ Solves philosophical problems by
reducing them to their parts and to the
relations in which these parts stand
◦ Problem-solving activity with the tools of
scientific testing and procedure (avoiding
speculative metaphysics)

20. How do we proceed?
 We proceed with a focus on several
problems on language using logical
tools/linguistic analysis to solve them:
◦ Problem of reference and meaning
◦ Problem of speech and action
◦ Problem of meaning and truth
◦ Problem of non-literal meaning

21. Advisory Grading Period (broadly
historical)
◦ “On Reference and Meaning”:
 What are the properties of words making it
meaningful? How are those properties made
available to those who know the language?
 What distinguishes the meaningful sounds and
gestures made by speakers from the meaningless
sounds and gestures that they also produce (e.g.
humming, leg tapping, etc.)
 Locke, Mill, Frege, Wittgenstein

22. Midterm Grading Period
 On Speech and Action:
◦ What is the relation of words and action?
◦ Can the meaning of a word depend on the
activities that the speaker does given the
word?
◦ Is ‘use’ of the word that which
distinguishes meaningful speech from
meaningless noises?
◦ What are the variety of ways in which
language is used?
◦ Austin, Alston, Searle, Wittgenstein

23. Midterm Grading Period
 On Meaning and Truth:
◦ What is it for words to mean what they do?
◦ What is the meaning of the slogan ‘Meaning
is truth-conditions’?
◦ How does the correctness of what we say
depend on facts about the speaker and other
speakers of this particular language?
◦ What is the relation of words and sentences?
How can meaningful words translate to
meaningful sentences expressing truth about
the world?
◦ Davidson, Higginbotham

24. Final Grading Period
 On Non-literal Meaning: Some Puzzles of
Ordinary Language:
◦ How do speakers communicate using metaphors
and language with non-literal meanings?
◦ How do we draw the distinction between general
abilities of language users and the abilities that
are specific to the speakers of a particular
language? How do abilities of the two sorts work
together in actual cases of linguistic
communication?
◦ How do we understand and find meaningful
religious language?
◦ Bergmann, Back, Hick

25. Assignment*
 Kant’ synthetic a priori cognition
 Kant’s division between the noumenal
and phenomenal
 Hegel’s totalizing Idea
 Heidegger’s ontological theories vs.
logical categorization
 Vienna Circle’s problem with
metaphysics