Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

RIP P F Strawson

bergkamp clec

13:27 / 17.02.06

Well, I'm afraid my first post here is not going to be too cheery. I was deeply saddened at the death of English philosopher P. F. Strawson on Monday. His work has been a great influence on me and I hope he will continue to be regarded as one of the great thinkers of the last century.

Times obituary

nighthawk

14:50 / 17.02.06

Sad indeed. I think his use of Kant in 'The Bounds of Sense' and 'Individuals' is one of the most influential in the analytic tradition, and rightly so.

bergkamp clec

15:08 / 17.02.06

I'm more familiar with his work in philosophy of language: his criticism of Russell's Theory of Descriptions, etc. It's always saddening when a great thinker dies as they can make no more impact on human thought but at least they leave the legacy of what they did manage to achieve.

Spaniel

15:09 / 17.02.06

Not really sure this is the forum...

Tryphena Absent

21:29 / 17.02.06

I think it's fair to put Strawson's obituary here.

bergkamp clec

15:57 / 19.02.06

Well I'm new so not totally sure on the etiquette but I couldn't see where else it would go. I was hoping it may open up some discussion about his philosophy, in particular his criticism of Quine's attack on analyticity. Strawson and Grice say that we can in fact understand the distinction between analytic and synthetic sentences because once learned people tend to pick out the same examples. But does this really mean they understand the concept? In what sense do we really understand something if we can't explain what it is?

A comparison could be drawn with Wittegenstein's contention that there is no single definition of 'games' that they all share but we all know what games are. It seems to me that our conception of the analytic/synthetic distinction is at the very least confused and as such does cause us to hesitate as Quine asserts.

Saltation

14:51 / 20.02.06

Thanks for bringing this guy to my attention. I've only been profoundly disappointed by my exposure to self-proclaimed "philosophy", but from the looks of that article, strawson may have sustained the promising curve kant slipped off halfway through his first book. i'll now keep an eye out for his stuff: cheers for that.

Spaniel

06:21 / 21.02.06

Strawson and Grice say that we can in fact understand the distinction between analytic and synthetic sentences because once learned people tend to pick out the same examples.

Well, I don't know anything about Strawson, is he interested in Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblence?

bergkamp clec

18:43 / 22.02.06

I think Strawson is one of those guys who's a "Philosopher's Philosopher": much lauded in philosophical circles but not really known outside in the general consciousness. Probably because he didn't come up with any good slogans like Neitzsche or wan't involved in media/self-publicity a la Sartre. Also, philosophy of language, logic and such like are not the most sexy of philosophical subjects.

I don't know if Strawson ever explicitly refers to Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblance. I was just using it as an analogy for how there are lots of concepts we seem to understand and yet can't define in the way Quine wants.

Spaniel

10:09 / 23.02.06

Okay, well how does Strawson explain the aforementioned tendency?

(By the way, I have a degree in philosophy - not that it counts for much

Add Your Reply