Talk:Philosophy of language

Eira, if you think it is wrong, please provide a corrected version, rather than just deleting it:

The term linguistic philosophy is used for approaches to philosophy that see all philosophy as ultimately being philosophy of language — other areas of philosophy must either be reducible to the philosophy of language, or else are somehow improper. The most well-known such approach is logical positivism.

(((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph seems to be using words in a way that they do not work. It would have to be edited at least as such:

• Replace "linguistic philosophy" with whatever term is actually being described here, as what is being described is not wp:linguistic philosophy.
• Entirely remove the paragraph about "logical positivism" because it does not meet the criteria that you have established.

I don't even know if there is a term for what you're describing, and as such, I deleted it. Fully in compliance with not even wrong, there's nothing to fix... it's all broken. (To additionally quote The Princess Bride: "I do not think that word means what you think it means.") --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is what is being described at linguistic philosophy. Linguistic philosophy saw all valid philosophy as being analysis of language, in other words, all philosophy is philosophy of language. And logical positivism was part of (but not the whole of) that movement. Do you actually know anything about this topic beyond what you've read in Wikipedia? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter... if your terminology doesn't match up with how other people are using it, then it's inconsistent with what they're using. And seriously, "logical positivism" does not match the criteria that you established. I don't have to know everything about primates to know that a cat is not a primate. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Eira, you have demonstrated you don't know enough about this topic to decide whether I am using terminology correctly with regards to it. And get off your terminological hobbyhorse. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Read this shit, and you'll see that "linguistic philosophy" was constructed to contest "logical positivism". Seriously, if your post disagrees with every goat_{The Goat be Praised.} damn hit on Google, you're using the terminology wrong. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There are different senses of the term linguistic philosophy. I am using the term in a broader sense, that page is using it in a narrower sense. Seriously, stop thinking you can know nothing about a topic and then ten seconds on Google makes you an expert on it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that I am an expert. But if you say that all "cordata" have a spinal column, and then say that a crab is a cordata, then I can immediately reject it, because "crab" doesn't fit. I don't have to know anything else about cordata, other than that they are vertebrate to exclude crabs from it. And if you're asserting that there is a wide and narrow meaning of "linguistic philosophy" then you're immediately admitting to a equivocation.

Actually, here... I'll make it easy: shut me up by providing some goat_{The Goat be Praised.} damn references for your statements. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe leave the topic for someone who has a clue? I agree completely that what I wrote was just a first cut which could be made more accurate, but you are not the person who can do that. Maybe leave it for a contributor who knows more about the topic than you do, and who is actually trying to make the article better rather than just being obsessed with trying to prove me wrong? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, saying that a word is used by different people in different senses is not equivocation, it's just the real world about how language is used. A lot of terms (even in academic disciplines) don't have a single universal precise definition, but are used by different authors in different ways. That doesn't mean any of those usages are wrong; rather than obssessing about this false idea that all words have precise definitions, it is better to try to become aware of the differences in usage. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm someone who has a clue. The term "linguistic philosophy" doesn't get used much these days (at least, not by philosophers of language). But it does get used in something like the broader sense that Maratreanism suggests. That said, it's not quite right to say that linguistic philosophy attempts to reduce all philosophy to phil. of language. I think a good rendering might be something like this: Linguistic philosophy is the school of thought that holds that all philosophical problems are reducible to problems of language, and that philosophical problems can thus be resolved either by attending to ordinary linguistic practices (so-called "ordinary language philosophy") or by reforming language to eradicate the inconsistencies inherent in ordinary language, as some logical positivists suggested. TallMan (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

TallMan: on the whole I agree with you. Although, when you say "it's not quite right"... can we explore in more detail exactly how it is or isn't right to say that? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Take, for instance, ordinary language philosophy. The central claim of ordinary language philosophy is that some (perhaps all) philosophical problems arise when we stop paying attention to ordinary linguistic practices. But the problems in question aren't necessarily problems in philosophy of language. R.M. Hare, for instance, is something of an ordinary language philosopher, but he was working in ethics and not philosophy of language. He didn't think that the problems in ethics were reducible to problems in philosophy of language, but rather problems in ethics arise out of linguistic confusions and can be resolved by attending to features of ordinary use.TallMan (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you TallMan! I didn't know enough to be able to explain to Maratrean how he was wrong (or as you tactfully put "not quite right"), but he simply couldn't accept that I could state that he was wrong without being an expert in the field... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Eira, maybe rather than trying to view things through a binary of right and wrong... its better to view things from the viewpoint of how to improve things? You don't appear to have any constructive interest in this topic other than trying to prove me wrong, even when you know nothing about it. You are painting TallMan as completely disagreeing what I said, when he doesn't: "it does get used in something like the broader sense that Maratreanism suggests". Maybe, rather than wasting people's time with an obsessive need to disprove another's statements — when you have no clue about the topic — you should stick to topics you know something about, or try to educate yourself? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's look at TallMan's inputs. "Linguistic philosophy" is not the reduction of philosophy to the "philosophy of language". And "logical positivism" is not the reduction of philosophy to the "philosophy of language". Nothing I said here is wrong. This is a rationalist webpage, we tend to take the attitude of "I would rather fail to have a belief, than have a wrong belief." Especially, when the text is filled with jargon and confidence so that it appears to be correct. What a wonderful idea... let's mislead readers. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a distinction between your approach and TallMan's. My original contribution had an element of truth in it, but could have been stated more precisely. TallMan has been engaging constructively by trying to make it more accurate. You really seem to have no interest in this except an obssession with trying to prove other people wrong... in particular, at the moment this fixation of yours seems to be focused on me. Why? And why the abrasiveness and pedantry? They are not redeeming features. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The very purpose of science is to prove other people's (and your own) hypothesis false. We don't learn anything from affirmative results, we learn things from negative results. The entirety of science is about hostility and doubt to theories and concepts. If you wonder why I keep "targeting you" it's because you're making more claims than others, thus there is a sampling bias. There is also a selection bias in that you're only looking at my attacks on your own ideas, but fail to take note of the assaults I mount on everyone's illogical posts. Most people don't get into a hissy fit about about me correcting details though. Then there is a confirmation bias in that you seem to have already made up your mind that I'm targeting you or singling you out, but this is actually false, but that doesn't mean that you don't keep seeking evidence to prove your claim right rather than prove your claim wrong. (i.e. see above, the purpose of science is to try and prove yourself wrong) Of course the Dunning-Kruger effect also won't let you accept that you're simply wrong more often than other people, but I won't defend such an assertion because I haven't actually examined it rigorously. Although, there have been more than one occasion at the very least where I assert that you are actually correct. (Usually prefaced with: "I hate to say this...") This arrogance shows when you're arguing with a lawyer about copyright and licenses... who the fuck do you think you are? Telling me that I'm not competent to tell you that you're wrong about this philosophical stuff, but you're perfectly competent to argue with a lawyer about copyright and licenses? Are you the arrogant pinnacle of mankind that is never wrong, and knows all about all fields? Let me give you a hint for the future of your life: learn which topics you actually have expertise in and limit your synthesis of new ideas to that topic only. Of course, I'm actually banging my head against the wall, you're arrogant enough to create a new religion, anything that I tell you won't actually make it into your head... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 03:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh Eira, it is so amusing to hear you accuse someone else of arrogance... do you think you are arrogant? You do describe your self on your own user page as a "totally pedantic bitch". Do you think that's a good thing?

Is the "Dunning-Kruger effect" true of me? Or maybe it is true of you? Personally, I think such an ad hominem (however impressive it is made to sound) is a waste of time.

And, speaking of the argument you are referring to with Nutty... all I have to go on is your assertion he is a lawyer; but why should anyone believe anything that anyone says simply because they say "I'm a lawyer". Lawyers are actually able to cite evidence to support their positions, such as caselaw or legislation - yet not once in that whole conversation did Nutty do such a thing. So, since he is unwilling to act like a lawyer, the fact that he is one (assuming that's true) is really irrelevant. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And yet, you accept TallMan's assertions about "linguistic philosophy" that contradict your own assertions about it... why? Because he doesn't say directly that you're wrong, but rather uses tactful wording?

As for the Dunning-Kruger effect, I'm not asserting it as an ad hominem, it is a natural and unavoidable feature of human existence. Yet, rather than address how you are mitigating any of the other biases that I stated that you're exerting in your argument that I am "targeting" you, you raise alone that I might be making an ad hominem by suggesting the Dunning-Kruger effect. But then again, I actually stated that I wouldn't defend the position that you're wrong more than others because I haven't mitigated the inherent biases that humans bring into everything. And in fact, in a moment of meta-clarity my admission of lack of knowledge, and mitigation of biases may actually indicate me towards the other end of the Dunning-Kruger effect (that people with great skill underrate themselves.) I know that I might be wrong, and so I hedge all my bets, and I fucking even TELL you that I'm hedging.

And when I bring fucking evidence to the table (like you apparently refuse to) you argue against that evidence, and have to have a Ph.D. sit down with you and explain to you how you're fucking wrong, before you'll accept it. Why? I'm willing to bet that there is a bit of bias, because you don't like me. You think I'm singling you out for harassment and abuse... and because of this, you overreact and dig your heels in, and refuse to admit any fucking errors that you ever make. You're being eaten alive by your goat_{The Goat be Praised.} damn bias, and you won't even fucking admit that they're there.

And Nutty Roux didn't have to cite evidence or case law for his beef with you, because you were that fucking wrong. And guess what? In this whole argument about "linguistic philosophy" you haven't cited any fucking evidence for your position either... even after I told you to shut me up by giving me evidence, and even after I gave you fucking citations and evidence. Because Eira can't be right can she? You can't let anything go when I point out error to you, can you?

You have two fucking choices here (yeah, yeah, false dichotomy, and argument from lack of imagination). Admit you were wrong about the two points that I raised. ("Linguistic philosophy" is not the reduction of all philosophy to the philosophy of language, and "logical positivism" is not based on the reduction of all philosophy to the philosophy of language.) Or put evidence up here to prove that you were not wrong. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Eira, since you are obviously incapable of expressing yourself without swearing, I do not feel your response merits a reply. Have a nice day. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Should "linguistic philosophy" even go in this article?

Are the two notions actually relevant enough to each other to bear mention in this article? I mean, just because "catfish" has similar form to "fishing cats", doesn't mean that we would or should put in details about fishing cats into an article about catfish. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's worth mentioning, if only to dispel confusion. The linguistic turn in philosophy is also responsible for the current importance of philosophy of language.TallMan (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Good call, it is I suppose important to point out to some people that these two matters are not directly related, even though one would be tempted to think so. For instance, it's not uncommon to mention in an article about catfish that it is not actually related to cats. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Your example is a bad one. Linguistic philosophy and philosophy of language are not the same thing, but they are much more related to each other than catfish and cats are. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

linguistic philosophy and relation to philosophy of language

And TallMan, going back to your example of R. M. Hare - if I remember his views correctly, his approach to metaethics revolves around linguistic concepts, such as prescriptivity (which is something which exists at the level of language, either syntactically, through some kind of imperative construction, or pragmatically, in non-syntactically imperative constructions like "X is good") and universalisability (and we can give a linguistic explication of that too). And these linguistic concepts are also concepts of philosophy of language. So Hare's meta-ethics is dependent upon, or at least related to, the philosophy of language, in a way in which competing non-linguistic approaches to meta-ethics won't be. What do you think? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been years since I last read Hare, but I'd say that while Hare's work isn't independent of philosophy of language, he's not doing philosophy of language. His notions of prescriptivity and universalizability are supposed to be features of language itself, and they don't generally get discussed in philosophy of language. The grammatical constructions (imperatives, mainly) do get discussed; one of his main claims is that the moral "must" is just what you get when you prefix the alethic necessity operator to an imperative. Philosophers of language do talk about imperatives and necessity operators, but not about the meta-ethical claim that Hare advances (which is false, by the way; you can't prefix an imperative with the alethic necessity operator).TallMan (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a topic of the philosophy of language the different functions that language can perform (as in J. L. Austin)? Doesn't Hare's notion of prescriptivity just relate to one of those functions?

Likewise, if one wants to define universalizability, one will do so in some way like "doesn't contain proper names or definite descriptions", and then what are proper names and definite descriptions is a topic of philosophy of language?

So, my point is, that as an approach to metaethics, Hare's work is dependent upon the philosophy of language, since it invokes concepts which philosophers of language seek to further explicate.

Contrast that with, say moral sense theory, or divine command theory, for theories of meta-ethics which have little or no dependency on the philosophy of language.

I think in general, lingustic approaches will inevitably depend on the philosophy of language, even if the topic itself is not related to language, whereas a non-linguistic approach to the same topic won't to the same degree. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledged Hare's dependency on philosophy of language. I think the discussion of linguistic philosophy should stay in the article, and there are people who do both linguistic philosophy and philosophy of language. The main distinction is that linguistic philosophy is a methodology (or a family of methodologies) while philosophy of language is a field of inquiry.TallMan (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidence that "philosophy of language" and "linguistic philosophy" are closely related

Contrary to Eira's suggestion that these two terms have little to do with each other, they are closely related, and sometimes even used synonymously by serious authors. One usage would distinguish "linguistic philosophy" as an approach to philosophy as a whole, and "linguistic philosophy" as a particular field of inquiry within philosophy. But, it must be said that the approach is very interested in (and will use the results of) the field, and likewise the field is very interested in the approach, so it is mistaken to claim they are unrelated, as Eira does. Furthermore, some serious authors appear not to distinguish the two at all, and treat them as essentially synonyms. I would present the following evidence:

• the book Bertrand Russell's Philosophy of Language, By R. Clack, p. 1, where it is clear the two terms are closely connected, if not used synonymously, in the introduction titled Russell and the Linguistic Philosophy: "...Russell was a major influence in turning Anglo-American philosophy in the direction it has subsequently taken - toward what may be termed, quite generally, the "linguistic philosophy". Unfortunately, though his importance as a precursor of the linguistic philosophy is well-known, the precise sense in which Russell himself can be considered a "philosopher of language" has not, to the present time, been sufficiently clarified. Useful beginnings have been made toward an investigation of this question, but they have been, withal, only beginnings, and nothing like an adequate picture of Russell's overall philosophy of language is presently available. Still wanting is a systematic examination of the various aspects of his analytic method which, collectively, give to his philosophy of language its distinctive character...." Continuing on through this book, the two terms are used interchangeably on multiple occasions. Robert J. Clack, although not to my knowledge a major figure in philosophy, is a serious enough philosophical author to have had his work published by a prestiguous European academic press (Martinus Nijhoff).
• A Google search for +"philosophy of language" +"linguistic philosophy" yields over 20,000 Google hits, indicating these terms are commonly used together. This includes also 1600 Google scholar hits, and 2800 Google books hits. This indicates the two terms are commonly used together, or even interchangeably, including in serious academic work. I think if you would review these hits, almost all of them would show a relationship between "linguistic philosophy" and "philosophy of language" that runs far deeper than the relationship between "cats" and "catfish", to use Eira's favoured example.
• It is instructive to read what Kanti Lal Das has to say in "Philosophical Revelance of Language", under the heading "The Distinction between Linguistic Philosophy and Philosophy of Language" on p. 4: "We think that the distinction between linguistic philosophy and the philosophy of language is so subtle that it would be difficult to explore a sharp distinction between these two. In fact we can hardly mention the name of a few philosophers who have done this distinction... As we have already stated the distinction is so subtle that it would be difficult to draw a clear border line in between the two..." Das does acknowledge it is possible to draw a distinction, but they are so closely related in Das' view, that it is difficult to do so, and generally not done in practice. Das is Reader in Philosophy at the University of North Bengal, and the book was published by Northern Book Centre as part of the University of Northern Bengal Studies in Philosophy Series.
• The "Philosophy of language" article in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy includes a major section called "linguistic philosophy". Although the section does not explicitly explore the relation between philosophy of language and linguistic philosophy, it gives no indication they are unrelated.
• Pergamon (an imprint of Elsevier)'s Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language (see contents tab). Would an encyclopedia of cats devote an entire article to catfish? Would an encyclopedia of fish (or catfish) devote an entire article to cats? Especially when this encyclopedia only has 150 articles, spread across 616 pages in hardcover, which suggests the average article is probably several pages long.

I could go on. The point is, Eira's claim that linguistic philosophy and philosophy of language are unrelated, and have no more in common than cats and catfish, stands disproven by the evidence. The evidence shows they are closely related fields, and professional philosophers struggle to distinguish them. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Such an extensive post on linguistic philosophy and philosophy of language and not a single mention of Ludwig Wittgenstein. This is a most grievous crime! You must address this forthwith or face an appointment with the guillotines! The fact that you mentioned Russel in the first point just makes it worse. --Danfly (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I plead guilty, may the court show mercy! Philosophical Investigations is such a wonderful book, much better (I dare say) than anything Russell wrote. (Tractatus, on the other hand... well, it's a good thing Wittgenstein changed his mind, he would be a lesser philosopher if he hadn't.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I could not understand even the first paragraph of the Tractatus without looking at the commentary. I still don't really (Remeber it saying something like the following 'The world is the totality of all true facts' and a few lines later he talks about 'the world as a fact'. Say what!?). I loved philosophical investigations though. Much more accessible, especially the language game thought experiment. Anyway, as you have have acknowledged the severity of your crime, the court may rule that your sentence shall be reduced. --Danfly (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree Tractatus is very dense... although I do (mostly) understand what Wittgenstein is saying - he is just basically stating standard logical atomism, as in Russell - it is just that he asserts it more than argues for it; while PI is not just a very different viewpoint, but also less assertion, more argument. But, I must add, I do love the mysticism of proposition 7 - "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence". Proposition 7 in a sense contains the seed of Wittgenstein's move away from Tractatus towards PI. It stands as an admission of the inherent limitations of the entire worldview he propounds in Tractatus; I think it also is a comment on his homosexuality, his attitude towards religion, his relationship with his parents, etc. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There aren't really any philosophers mentioned in the article. At the moment a guy named Kanti Lal Das is in there, but I'm going to suggest he gets removed, since he's not a notable figure. Adding particular people would be a good way to expand, but with the caveat that a list of notable philosophers of language would be exceedingly long (as far as lists of notable philosophers go).TallMan (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As to the relation between linguistic philosophy and philosophy of language: as I said earlier, the term "linguistic philosophy" isn't really in common currency these days. You'll see it in discussions of history of philosophy but not so much in philosophy of language itself. I'm not surprised to see that there are people who run them together; I don't think that's a useful way to proceed, since 1) many of the paradigmatic practitioners of linguistic philosophy weren't doing philosophy of language, or at least weren't focused on philosophy of language and 2) there's a valuable distinction to be made between those who think that philosophical problems are the result of linguistic confusions and those who are interested in philosophical problems involving language. We ought to regiment our discussion to preserve this distinction. Kanti Lal Das and Robert Clack aren't notable figures, and the Routledge Encyclopedia pretty clearly identifies linguistic philosophy as a methodology rather than a discipline. Eira's cat-catfish comparison was too much, but I think the current version obscures a relevant distinction.TallMan (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Tallman, let me present four propositions, please let me know if you agree or disagree with them:

1. "Linguistic philosophy" and "philosophy of language" can be distinguished, with "linguistic philosophy" being a methodology that can be applied in any field of philosophical inquiry, and "philosophy of language" being a particular field of philosophical inquiry
2. There is a significant and substantial relationship between the methodology and the field; "linguistic philosophy" and "philosophy of language" have significantly more to do with each other than an arbitrary pair of philosophical methodology and philosophical discipline will
3. Some serious philosophical authors do not clearly distinguish "linguistic philosophy" from "philosophy of language" in their usage, which gives the usage which does not distinguish them a certain validity
4. The boundary between "linguistic philosophy" and "philosophy of language" can at times be subtle or ill-defined, due to the close relationship between them

In terms of proposition (3), I agree Clack is not a notable philosopher. However, he is without doubt a serious academic philosopher, as opposed to just a confused amateur or undergraduate, so the fact that he uses the terms essentially synonymously does give that usage a certain validity, which it would lack if no serious academic philosopher used them in that way. I don't think Clack's work in itself is worthy of mention in the article, but it is a useful source in support of this proposition.

In terms of proposition (4), I find Das arguments on this point convincing. Likewise, agreement that Das is not a notable figure, and so does not in himself deserve mention in the article; but again, can be usefully mentioned in support of proposition (4). His arguments should be evaluated on their own merits, whether he is a notable figure is not relevant to doing so. I should also note, Das' is the only one I can find which directly addresses this question, the relationship of linguistic philosophy to philosophy of language, besides Searle whom Das quotes, who I shall discuss below, although maybe you can find further sources which do so. I would like at this point to quote Das' work more substantially, since the quote I have given so far is just the bare minimum to show his view, but did not explain his reasoning in support of proposition (4):

We think that the distinction between linguistic philosophy and the philosophy of language is so subtle that it would be difficult to explore a sharp distinction between these two. In fact we can hardly mention the name of a few philosophers who have done this distinction. Professor Searle in the introduction of his book Philosophy of Language has outlined the distinction between 'philosophy of language' and 'linguistic philosophy'. As we have already stated that the distinction is so subtle that it would be difficult to draw a clear boarder [sic] line between the two, because a philosopher who is doing linguistic philosophy must be starting with a definite conception of language - about how language is related to the world, what language means. However, keeping the close proximity or association between the philosophy of language and linguistic philosophy in mind, it can still be said that linguistic philosophy is very much a philosophical method; on the other hand, the philosophy of language is the nature of a subject within philosophy. The question then is: In what sense are they intimately connected? Does it make sense to say that lingusitc philosophy, being a philosophical method, is very much a subject within philosophy or philosophy of language, being the nature of a subject within philosophy, can be treated as a philosophical method? According to Searle some of the problems of the philosophy of language can be profitably attacked by the method of linguistic philosophy. For example, the nature of truth is very much a subject of the philosophy of language, but any problem relating to the nature of truth can be solved by the proper analyses of the concept of truth, which is very much a concern of linguistic philosophy. Searle further inclines to say that the method linguistic philosophers would like to introduce in conducting linguistic analyses depends crucially on the philosophy of language. It is true to say that any linguistic analysis or clarification will ultimately depend on some general conceptions, such as, how words mean and how words are related to the world. Thus, in a nutshell it can be said that the 'philosophy of language' and 'linguistic philosophy' are the two sides of the same coin, they are interlocked with each other. However, in this book we shall primarily be concerned with 'linguistic philosophy' as a philosophical method. So the book entitled as Philosophical Relevance of Language is actually intended to show the relevance of language to philosophy as a linguistic method. [bolding is my own emphasis]

Now, Das describes his views on this issue as basically based on John R. Searle's discussion in his 1977 book The philosophy of language. Searle is without doubt a notable philosopher of language, whose views deserve mentioning in this article. However, I don't have access to the text of that book right now, so can't confirm Das' claims that his own views mirror Searle's. However, assuming Das is describing Searle's views correctly, that would suggest that Searle agrees with propositions (1), (2) and (4) above. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)