Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T02:05:57.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geach's ‘Refutation’ of Austin Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Avner Baz
Avner Baz*
Affiliation:
Tufts University, Medford, MA02155, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A characteristic move of what is known as ‘ordinary language philosophy’ (OLP), as exemplified by J.L. Austin's discussion of knowledge in ‘Other Minds,’ is to appeal to the ordinary and normal use(s) of some philosophically troublesome word(s), with the professed aim of alleviating this or that philosophical difficulty or dispelling this or that philosophical confusion. This characteristic move has been criticized widely on the grounds that it rests on a conflation of ‘meaning’ and ‘use’; and that criticism has been quite successful in its effect: OLP is widely held nowadays within the mainstream of analytic philosophy to have somehow been refuted or otherwise seriously discredited. However, that the words in question do indeed have something referable to as ‘their meaning,’ which is not only conceptually distinguishable from their ordinary and normal uses, but also theoretically separable from these uses, in a way that renders misguided the ordinary language philosopher's characteristic appeal and validates the traditional concerns OLP set itself out to dispel, has for the most part merely been presupposed and insisted on, as opposed to argued for, by detractors of OLP.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 41 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austin, J. 1979. ‘Other Minds,’ in Philosophical Papers, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baz, A. 2009. ‘Who Knows?’ European Journal of Philosophy 17: 201–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baz, A. Forthcoming a. ‘Knowing Knowing (that Such and Such),’ in New Essays on the Philosophy of J. L. Austin, Sørly, Richard and Gustafsson, Martin eds. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baz, A. Forthcoming b. ‘Must Philosophers Rely on Intuitions?’ Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. 2008. Between Saying & Doing. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavell, S. 1969. ‘Knowing and Acknowledging,’ in Must We Mean What We Say? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geach, P. 1960. ‘Ascriptivism,’ Philosophical Review 69: 221–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geach, P. 1965. ‘Assertion,’ Philosophical Review 74: 449–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glock, H.J. 1996. ‘Abusing Use,’ Dialectica 50: 205–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. 1989. ‘Logic and Conversation,’ in Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hanfling, O. 2000. Philosophy and Ordinary Language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hare, R.M. 1952. The Language of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1999. Speech Acts. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, S. 2003. Philosophical Analysis in the 20th Century, Volume 2: The Age of Meaning. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. 2008. ‘Philosophy of Language in the 20th Century,’ in Routledge Guide to 20th Century Philosophy (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
Strawson, P. 1949. ‘Truth,’ Analysis 9: 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. 1950. ‘Truth,’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 24: 129–30.Google Scholar
Travis, C. 1991. ‘Annals of Analysis.’ Mind 100: 237–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2007. The Philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1963. Philosophical Investigations. G.E.M. Anscombe, trans. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1969. On Certainty, Anscombe, G.E.M. and Wright, G.H. von eds., Paul, Denis and Anscombe, G.E.M. trans. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar