Catholic's and the linguistic turn in philosophy?

[jwright82]

I am curious as to what is the academic Catholic response to the linguistic philosophy of the Twentieth Century? I say this because it seems to me, and this may just be my own ignorance, that Catholic philosophy prefers an Aristotillian view of things and that is largley discounted by contemporary philosophy. I know that Charsle Taylor is a practicing Catholic and he is on the forfront of this philosophical trend. Are there other academic responses to contemporary trends in philosophy?

 

[awatkins69]

This was an issue for me when I first started studying “analytic philosophy” which came out of the “linguistic turn”. While some traditional Catholics consider analytic philosophy to be a lot of sophistry and hair-splitting I think it’s really great. In fact, I consider it to be the modern version of scholasticism. Like the scholastics, the analytics use precise language, specialized terminology, logical rigour, and clear argumentative form.

While many of the early people, like Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Ayer, Quine were all radical empiricists and materialists, so far analytic philosophy has come to include many famous theists and even Catholics. As you say, the Church’s philosophy traditionally (though not exclusively) relied upon a broadly Aristotelian conception. This has been defended by such eminent thinkers as Kit Fine, E.J. Lowe and Michael Loux. In recent years Catholic + Christian philosophers have brought the traditional philosophy and theology of the Church to bear in contemporary analytic philosophy, creating what’s called “analytic Thomism”.

 

[jwright82]

This was an issue for me when I first started studying “analytic philosophy” which came out of the “linguistic turn”. While some traditional Catholics consider analytic philosophy to be a lot of sophistry and hair-splitting I think it’s really great. In fact, I consider it to be the modern version of scholasticism. Like the scholastics, the analytics use precise language, specialized terminology, logical rigour, and clear argumentative form.

While many of the early people, like Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Ayer, Quine were all radical empiricists and materialists, so far analytic philosophy has come to include many famous theists and even Catholics. As you say, the Church’s philosophy traditionally (though not exclusively) relied upon a broadly Aristotelian conception. This has been defended by such eminent thinkers as Kit Fine, E.J. Lowe and Michael Loux. In recent years Catholic + Christian philosophers have brought the traditional philosophy and theology of the Church to bear in contemporary analytic philosophy, creating what’s called “analytic Thomism”.

Wow thank you so much! I never even considered the connection between Scholastic philosophy and Analytic philosophy, that is very interesting. Thank you for the link too! Have you studyed Charsle Taylor at all?

 

[awatkins69]

Wow thank you so much! I never even considered the connection between Scholastic philosophy and Analytic philosophy, that is very interesting. Thank you for the link too! Have you studyed Charsle Taylor at all?

No problem. Two very famous early analytic philosophers, G.E.M. Anscombe and Peter Geach were very influential. Anscombe was probably Wittgenstein’s most famous pupil. They were both probably the first analytic Thomists.

As for Taylor, I have studied him. I’m very interested in political philosophy, and he’s pretty important. However, although he’s a practicing Catholic, I’m not all that sympathetic to his pluralist/cosmopolitan/multiculturalist ideas. Still, he’s another famous Catholic analytic philosopher (and he’s also important for bringing to bear other philosophers of the continental tradition).

 

[jwright82]

No problem. Two very famous early analytic philosophers, G.E.M. Anscombe and Peter Geach were very influential. Anscombe was probably Wittgenstein’s most famous pupil. They were both probably the first analytic Thomists.

As for Taylor, I have studied him. I’m very interested in political philosophy, and he’s pretty important. However, although he’s a practicing Catholic, I’m not all that sympathetic to his pluralist/cosmopolitan/multiculturalist ideas. Still, he’s another famous Catholic analytic philosopher (and he’s also important for bringing to bear other philosophers of the continental tradition).

Yeah I love the later Wittgenstien myself, Anscobe has interested me for that reason (she was Catholic too right?). As for Talyor I am familar with his work criticizing seculerism as a religous point of view itself and his calling into question the correspondence theory of truth. I will have to look up this Analytical Thomism, does it change very much of what Thomism traditionaly is, like Anscombe and her use of the later Wittgenstien?

 

[Abba]

This was an issue for me when I first started studying “analytic philosophy” which came out of the “linguistic turn”. While some traditional Catholics consider analytic philosophy to be a lot of sophistry and hair-splitting I think it’s really great. In fact, I consider it to be the modern version of scholasticism. Like the scholastics, the analytics use precise language, specialized terminology, logical rigour, and clear argumentative form.

While many of the early people, like Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Ayer, Quine were all radical empiricists and materialists, so far analytic philosophy has come to include many famous theists and even Catholics. As you say, the Church’s philosophy traditionally (though not exclusively) relied upon a broadly Aristotelian conception. This has been defended by such eminent thinkers as Kit Fine, E.J. Lowe and Michael Loux. In recent years Catholic + Christian philosophers have brought the traditional philosophy and theology of the Church to bear in contemporary analytic philosophy, creating what’s called “analytic Thomism”.

Hello awatkins69,

Well, you seem to have all that stuff fresh in your mind and I really cannot take you on, but, I want to let you know that I disagree with your conception of the development of philosophical thinking and with your understanding that Aristotle greatly influenced Catholic thinking. You are implying that Aristotle influenced it more than Plato and that Catholic theologians have not traditionally been analytical. I disagree.

Just putting my disagreement with your understanding out there…

Peace,

Abba