So who is familiar with Moore and his Notion of Analysis? Who wants to venture a definition for his Notion of Analysis?
His famous example is of holding up his hands and saying he knew of at least two external objects in the world by being able to see his hands.
I remember the example but not the Notion…
I can’t remember particularly clearly, though I’m not sure if Moore himself had that clear an idea of just what his ‘notion of analysis’ was… In any case, if you do not already know, there is a paper called ‘The Notion of Analysis in Moore’s Philosophy’, by C.H. Langford. This paper, as well as Moore’s response, can be found in the ‘Blackwell Anthology to Analytic Philosophy’, if you are interested.
Regards,
James
Thanks James…ironically it’s exactly that paper I am having trouble with.
Ahh… I figured this might be the case, otherwise it would be hard to explain the specificity of your inquiry. (Unless you just happened to be a Moore enthusiast…)
Did you read Moore’s response though to Langford’s paper?
And one more question: why are you interested in Moore?
Yes, and because I’ve always been interested in common sense
Well I don’t know if you have an opinion but I think it’s fair to say that Langford misunderstood Moore on the notion of anaylsis with regards to his definitions of the appropriate relations between analysans and analysanda.
In Moore’s response he tactfully nods to Langford’s volume in work but manages to ruin it all by the simple clarification that he never meant to imply that the notion included a reliance on verbal expressions such as defined by Langford - indeed, it seems he is quite pissed off with the whole interpretation.
The paradox too, although not entirely Langford’s doing, just seems tacky. It’s a nice thing to play around with especially when you’re feeling out the murky waters of Moore’s semantic obsessions.
Langford’s own tokening a mental representation of idiomatic content as a means to quantify or somehow measure the relation of equivalence between two apparantly paradoxically synonymous verbal entities is beautiful yet, I think, unnecessary.
There’s an excellent section on Moore in Avrum Stroll’s “Twentieth Century Analytic Philosophy”. It’s a damn good introduction to this stuff and it clearly demonstrates the development of the “common sense” movement in analytic philosophy. Hope this is some help - enjoy the Stroll!
Moore is the modern day kant. in that he supports Kant’s notion of the thing in itself, but he does not admit it. His whole defence of common sense is his defence of what he believes to be common sense, can he see what others see. Common sense is common nonsense.
It is common sense that race does not exist, well that’s complete gibberish as I have proven before.
also, his paradox is totally underserved.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_paradox
Nope,
‘I know that it is raining, even though I know it is not raining’ is unimaginable. but to say ‘I know John knows that it is raining, even though I know it isn’t’ makes no sense. If John knows that it is raining then maybe he is seeing it on the computer, but you know it is not raining outside.
FOR GOD’S SAKE I HAVE ALREADY PROVEN THAT LANGUAGE DOES NOT CREATE EXPERIENCE BUT THAT IT DESCRIBES EXPERIENCE. why are these language games still being played?
Thanks for the tip AlGeorge.