Customer Reviews

Twentieth-Century Analytic Philosophy

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

For the student of philosophy, this book together with a collection of original papers could make a very good introduction to analytic philosophy. For the professional philosopher and others with good knowledge of twentieth century analytic philosophy, it could serve as a roadmap to compare with your own understanding.

In spite of a subject, which, in some ways, could be boring, I find this book often very fun and amusing. So far as I can understand it is also written with very good understanding and insight in to it's subject.

The chapter on the future of analytic philosophy and the question of which philosophers who will be still famous in the future is well argued and very interesting. And Yes, if you placed your money on Wittgenstein as a star of philosophy in year 2200 there are god arguments that you have made a good investment.

I'd actually give this book three and a half stars if I could. It's kind of a mixed bag -- the good sections (like the section on Austin) combine clear introductory overviews with insightful critical observations. But the not-so-good sections (like the section on Carnap) are muddled, assume too much knowledge, and will just be confusing to someone who's not well-versed in the topic already. The whole book's like that -- some interesting, clear, enlightening paragraphs alternating with some murky, poorly-explained, head-scratching paragraphs. Not bad if you're looking for some insights on 20th century analytic philosophers, but not great for a first intro. (Btw, a fair amount of the book is taken from Stroll's section on 20th century analytic philosophy in the Columbia History of Western Philosophy. That section is shorter than this book, but I found it more clearly written and structured and a much better overall read, albeit with a few details missing that you get in this book.)

The author states: "This study is not so much a survey of the period as a depiction of what I regard as some main philosophical ideas in the twentieth century." (pg 9)

The eight philosophers he concentrates on are:

Gottlob Frege (1848-1925)
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
G. E. Moore (1873-1958)
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)
Rudolf Carnap (1891-1970)
J. L. Austin (1911-1960)
Gilbert Ryle (1900-1976)
W. V. O. Quine (1908-2000)

In chapter eight he discusses the theories of Ruth Barcan Marcus, Saul Kripke, and Hilary Putnam. In the final chapter the author contends that "Wittgenstein may well be the most original philosopher since Kant." (pg 253) He means, beyond that, to say that Wittgenstein is the greatest philosopher since Kant. He then discusses a few issues in philosophy of mind and perception, then ends by declaring his belief that philosophy (by which he means English speaking philosophy) has not trivialized itself out of intellectual significance. His book shows no evidence that it hasn't.

Chapter titles:

(1) The Solera System
(2) Philosophical Logic
(3) Logical Positivism and the Tractatus
(4) G. E. Moore: A Ton of Bricks
(5) Wittgenstein's Later Philosophy: "The Stream of Life"
(6) Ryle and Austin: The Golden Age of Oxford Philosophy
(7) W. v. O. Quine
(8) Direct Reference Theories
(9) Today and Tomorrow

Twentieth-Century Analytic Philosophy by Avrum Stroll is a useful but limited guide to the history of 20th century analytic philosophy. Stroll deals only with some of the giants. He explicitly limits his treatment to Frege, Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Austin, Ryle, and Quine. These are indeed leading analytic philosophers but many other leading analytic philosophers are left out or only mentioned: Strawson, Grice, Rorty, Davidson, Putnam, Ayer, Rawls, Hare, Hart, Berlin, and so on. Furthermore Stroll almost entirely ignores 20th century analytic ethics. Rawls, who's stature is equal to Carnap, Austin, or Ryle, is never even mentioned anywhere in the book. Broad has more entries in the index than does Strawson.

Despite the claims of the author this is not a book for the general reader. The treatment assumes a good background in philosophy and a command of the technical vocabulary used by philosophers. This is a book for the philosophy grad student or teacher who wants a good overview of some main threads in analytic philosophy. It would not be appropriate for use as a text in an undergrad course.

For the most part Stroll's expositions are clear and correct, direct and fair. He is especially good on Russell's early philosophy, Frege, Austin, and some of Carnap. His explanations of e.g. Russell's theory of descriptions, Austin's treatment of speech acts, Wittgenstein's Tractatus are very useful.

In the final chapters Stroll considers the direct reference theories of Kripke and Putnam. These sections are especially weak. He does not understand what the new theory of reference is about. These sections are not historical expositions but critical engagements as Stroll acknowledges. Stroll's criticisms of direct reference theories are simple-minded and incorrect, especially his discussion of natural kind terms.

Stroll's writing is elegant in places and extremely awkward in others. The book has no introduction as such. The title of the first chapter is "The Solera System." The Solera System is something used by Sherry makers and Stroll imagines that this illuminates the relations between traditional philosophy and 20th century analytic philosophy. This is a conceit or metaphor that recurs in several places in the text. I did not find it at all helpful. Nowhere does Stroll tackle the really interesting and deep questions about analytic philosophers' rejection of traditional philosophy, the relations between analytic and continental philosophy, nor the struggle of later analytic philosophy with and against its origins.

As I said this is a limited overview of analytic philosophy.

An effort to introduce 20th century analytic philosophy to a broad audience. Stroll discusses several important philosophers/schools chronologically starting with Frege and Russell, and concluding with recent work on philosophy of mind and perception. Frege, Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, the Logical Positivists (particularly Carnap), Quine, Ryle, and Austin are all discussed. For each philosopher/group discussed Stroll provides some biographical information and a discussion of important ideas. Recurring themes are the importance of formal logic, philosophy of language, a generally empirical orientation, and admiration for science as a model of inquiry. Stroll adds some of his own criticism. In general, these parts are generally done though a bit uneven. I'm not sure how much the biographical detail adds in most cases and would have preferred more discussion of individual concepts. I'd also prefer a more systematic approach following the evolution of themes.
One comment. Stroll concludes with a section discussing contemporary philosophy and pointing out the absence of towering figures but the presence of many philosophers working in relatively narrow niches. He finds this surprising. It shouldn't be and is driven probably by 2 factors. One is the enormous post-WWII expansion of higher education that provides employment for a substantial number of philosophers. The second is that philosophers, deliberately or not, are emulating the success of the natural sciences.

Not just that this is very readable book, but it is multi-layered one. You can read it with little attention, but if you put more attention to it, new things appear.
In fact it is so interesting, that I wanted to find some information 5 months after reading the book, and found myself reading it again.

Reading original philosophers of the 20th century doing analytical philosophy is a challenging task, but this book is not quite up to the task that "Analytic Philosophy: An Anthology" from Blackwell is. Summations and Narratives have their place in historical works, but doing philosophy within its historical context is a far more rewarding pursuit.

"Analytic Philosophy: An Anthology" is without competition among anthologies that take the "best that has been thought," from all of analytic philosophy's perspectives -- ontology, epistemology, axiology, praxeology, metaphysics -- and offers it under one book. I'd slight it for its lack of Searle's, Dummett's, Kenny's, Geach's, works in the anthology, but not every anthology is to every one else's standards.

What makes "Analytic Philosophy: An Anthology" so desirable is that many, if not most, of the essays are not available in print, without photocopying, buying original works, or amassing a huge library for a few critical writers. But even better, philosophers doing actual philosophy is about as ideal as a philosophy text can get. Very few philosophers -- Bernard Williams a clear exception -- are able to handle historical writing in the process of current analysis.

Compared to the superior offerings elsewhere, I am unsure why readers would prefer the anemic.