Introduction to "History of Late Analytic Philosophy"

IF 0.2 0 PHILOSOPHY
G. Bonino, P. Tripodi
{"title":"Introduction to \"History of Late Analytic Philosophy\"","authors":"G. Bonino, P. Tripodi","doi":"10.4454/PHILINQ.V6I1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last thirty years historical attention has been directed toward analytic philosophy: some analytic philosophers have begun reflecting on the philosophical tradition they belong to, while many other scholars have been working on what has now become a well-established discipline known as “history of analytic philosophy” (for a comprehensive bibliography see Beaney 2013). Yet this historiographical perspective mainly focuses on the origins of analytic philosophy or on the central decades of the 20th century. These two periods can be labelled respectively as early analytic philosophy (Frege, Russell, Moore, the early Wittgenstein, etc.) and as middle analytic philosophy (Carnap, Ryle, the later Wittgenstein, Quine, etc.) The use of the former label is firmly established, whereas the latter is less common, yet fairly natural. By contrast, a proper historical investigation of the most recent stages of analytic philosophy is greatly needed. Some contributions towards a better understanding of this issue are available. Among them: Baldwin (2001), Priest (2003), Soames (2003: vol. II, 461-476), Williamson (2007, chapter i and “Afterword”), Beaney (2013), Williamson (2014), Tripodi (2015, chapter iv). But they are still few and far between. This special issue of Philosophical Inquiries is intended to be a further stimulus for such an investigation. Full-text PDF of this introduction is available in open access.","PeriodicalId":41386,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Inquiries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Inquiries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4454/PHILINQ.V6I1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Over the last thirty years historical attention has been directed toward analytic philosophy: some analytic philosophers have begun reflecting on the philosophical tradition they belong to, while many other scholars have been working on what has now become a well-established discipline known as “history of analytic philosophy” (for a comprehensive bibliography see Beaney 2013). Yet this historiographical perspective mainly focuses on the origins of analytic philosophy or on the central decades of the 20th century. These two periods can be labelled respectively as early analytic philosophy (Frege, Russell, Moore, the early Wittgenstein, etc.) and as middle analytic philosophy (Carnap, Ryle, the later Wittgenstein, Quine, etc.) The use of the former label is firmly established, whereas the latter is less common, yet fairly natural. By contrast, a proper historical investigation of the most recent stages of analytic philosophy is greatly needed. Some contributions towards a better understanding of this issue are available. Among them: Baldwin (2001), Priest (2003), Soames (2003: vol. II, 461-476), Williamson (2007, chapter i and “Afterword”), Beaney (2013), Williamson (2014), Tripodi (2015, chapter iv). But they are still few and far between. This special issue of Philosophical Inquiries is intended to be a further stimulus for such an investigation. Full-text PDF of this introduction is available in open access.
“晚期分析哲学史”导论
在过去的三十年里,历史的注意力一直集中在分析哲学上:一些分析哲学家已经开始反思他们所属的哲学传统,而许多其他学者一直在研究现在已经成为一门成熟的学科,即“分析哲学史”(关于全面的参考书目,请参阅Beaney 2013)。然而,这种史学视角主要关注分析哲学的起源或20世纪中心的几十年。这两个时期可以分别被标记为早期分析哲学(弗雷格、罗素、摩尔、早期维特根斯坦等)和中期分析哲学(卡尔纳普、赖尔、后来的维特根斯坦、奎因等)。前一个标签的使用是牢固确立的,而后一个标签则不太常见,但相当自然。相比之下,对分析哲学的最新阶段进行适当的历史调查是非常必要的。有一些有助于更好地理解这个问题的贡献。其中包括Baldwin (2001), Priest (2003), Soames (2003: vol. II, 461-476), Williamson(2007,第一章和“后记”),Beaney (2013), Williamson (2014), Tripodi(2015,第四章)。但他们仍然很少。本期《哲学研究》特刊旨在进一步促进这种研究。本介绍的全文PDF可在开放获取中获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信