Analytic Philosophy: A science of pattern?

Analytic Philosophy: A science of pattern?

Mathematics is a science of pattern just as the natural sciences. Thus ‘they go together like a horse and carriage’.

It appears to me that Analytic Philosophy is also a science of pattern just as language is a science of pattern. Analytic Philosophy concludes that language is appropriate for analyzing human cognition based upon this conjecture.

Am I in the ballpark?

analytic philosophies (language), like mathematics, are closed circular systems that are self refering… they tell you about how the terms function in the definitional system- nothing more…

the empirical world exists outside of them

-Imp

Perhaps we can say that even the claim that ‘the empirical world exists outside of them’ is itself an analytical statement. Indeed, it’s a metaphor, the word ‘outside’ being part of a set of linguistic delineations that are, in fact, ‘outside of’ the empirical world. Now, this doesn’t mean that empirical experience doesn’t in some way precede language, or exist outside of it, or be a necessary condition of language’s existence. Indeed, you and I would probably both agree that it is all of those things and more. It’s more an issue of whether or not describing all this makes any sense at all, if it were actually true. If the empirical world is outside of language then saying so puts us back into language, so we have the same problem all over again.

I’m still toying with Derrida’s ‘there is nothing outside text’ or ‘there is nothing without text’, in the older sense of ‘without’ meaning the opposite of ‘within’.

Imp - While I agree, I prefer to phrase it this way - that language exists outside the empirical world. I don’t mean any logical difference here, but I find it easier to respond to siatd if I use that formulation. Just to be clear.

Siatd - I also agree with you, as I see nothing contradictory between your statements and Imp’s. But it seems that there is something outside text - there is the reader. In the same way that individual words lack meaning outside a (linguistic) context, doesn’t text lack meaning without a reader?

The sense is wholly within the language, but the meaning is a relation, I think.

Impenitent,
Right on!!! Where analytic philosophy fails is where it cannot distinquish between its own constructions and questions raised by organic, evolving human conditions. It can place certitude on its own assumptions, but cannot be certain about what is involved in experientail changes we realize on a non-abstract human level. Wittsgenstein grew out of such assumptions. Mental maturity demands that we evolve past the safe resting places of absolutism into the, often uncertain, realm of moving potential.
I can parse sentences and analyze structures until I’m blue in the face; but until I can see each plateau of thought, each advance in thought, as part of a moving continuum, I am only expressing the human frustration that wants to be done with the whole mess, finished, resolved, completed!
Patterns recur. They are not final answers to anything.

how do we define anything but by comparison,… so by nature is is scientific. Yet when we have predispositions and expectations, we limit the facts we choose to see.

I’m always looking for facts to give me a more well rounded understanding. So I will dive head deep in the paranormal to look for realistic parrellels. Yet an understanding of truth vs misconceptions comes in handy.

What it comes down to is logic vs assumptions. Or more like logic vs what your willing to percieve. Because as we learn to percieve more we fine ture our concious awareness and logic.

Phil,
???

what’s your basis for understanding the world? Does it extend beyond normal limits or self theorized limits. No limits is the best way. No limits allows you to encompase more, and misdiagnose less.