The Hot New Thing

I was told the following things by my professor at my language seminar:

“Chomsky killed ordinary language philosophy”

“he did this by showing that all language has structure (through some kind of observation of developmental psychology of language)”

“ordinary language philosophy LOST”

“phil of language theories are to predict and explain the data”

This is the kind of department I find myself in. I stood dumbfounded at what was coming out of this guy’s mouth. I can’t get out of here fast enough.

~ by Barky on February 6, 2013.

4 Responses to “The Hot New Thing”

  1. Knowing the kind of unorthodox background you’ve got in regard to OLP I figure a paper like this isn’t aimed at the way you think about the subject. For instance Chomsky’s theories on syntax and the natural aspects of language seem to have far less purchase on the Wittgenstein you and I might hear in PI than they seem to have on OLP at large. Was a distinction made in the talk between OLP and ILP philosophers? If so, who ended up in the OLP category?

  2. I’m not sure what ILP philosopher stands for. He certainly put J.L. Austin into the camp of people that have been killed off. I think he believes this about Wittgenstein as well. I told him about the modern work of people like Jim Conant and he seemed genuinely shocked that anyone takes them seriously outside of a History of Philosophy context.

    We have an unorthodox background indeed.

  3. Grist for your mill: Avner Baz, When Words are Called For (Harvard U Press). A fine reanimation of OLP against the claims of its so-called killers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: