(A) Linguistic Turn in Philosophy

The “linguistic turn” is a major development in 20th-century philosophy, characterized by a significant shift in focus from traditional metaphysical and epistemological questions to the study of language. It’s the idea that many, if not all, philosophical problems are ultimately problems of language and can be resolved (or dissolved) by a careful analysis of the language used to express them.

Here’s a breakdown of what the linguistic turn entails:

Key Features:

• Focus on Language as a Tool of Analysis: The linguistic turn emphasizes the importance of language as a tool for understanding the world and for resolving philosophical problems. Proponents believe that language is not simply a neutral medium for expressing thoughts, but rather a system that shapes and structures our understanding of reality.
• Rejection of Traditional Metaphysics: Many proponents of the linguistic turn were critical of traditional metaphysics, which they saw as based on unfounded assumptions about the nature of reality. They argued that metaphysical questions are often based on misunderstandings of language.
• Emphasis on Meaning and Logic: The linguistic turn emphasizes the importance of meaning and logic in understanding language. Philosophers sought to develop precise and rigorous methods for analyzing the meaning of words and sentences.
• Analysis of Concepts: A central method is the careful analysis of concepts, often through analyzing the language in which those concepts are expressed. The goal is to clarify the meaning of concepts and to identify any hidden assumptions or contradictions.
• Influence of Logic and Linguistics: The linguistic turn was heavily influenced by developments in logic and linguistics. Philosophers drew on formal logic to analyze the structure of language and on linguistics to understand the nature of meaning and communication.

Key Figures Associated with the Linguistic Turn:

• Gottlob Frege: Often seen as a precursor to the linguistic turn, Frege’s work on logic and language laid the groundwork for later developments. His distinction between sense and reference was particularly influential.
• Bertrand Russell: Russell’s theory of descriptions was an early example of how linguistic analysis could be used to resolve philosophical problems. He argued that many philosophical puzzles could be solved by analyzing the logical form of language.
• Ludwig Wittgenstein: Wittgenstein’s work, particularly his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, had a profound impact on the linguistic turn. He argued that the limits of our language are the limits of our world and that philosophical problems arise from misunderstandings of language. (His later work, however, shifted away from the strict logic of the Tractatus and towards an emphasis on language as a social practice.)
• The Vienna Circle (Logical Positivists): This group of philosophers, influenced by Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein, argued that only statements that can be verified empirically or logically are meaningful. They rejected metaphysics as meaningless.
• J.L. Austin and the Ordinary Language Philosophers: Austin and other ordinary language philosophers argued that philosophical problems often arise from misusing or misunderstanding ordinary language. They emphasized the importance of paying attention to how words are actually used in everyday contexts.
• Peter Strawson: Strawson contributed to the debate about reference and description, challenging Russell’s theory and developing alternative accounts of how language refers to the world.

Two Main Strains of the Linguistic Turn:

1. Ideal Language Philosophy: (e.g., early Russell, early Wittgenstein, logical positivists): sought to construct an ideal, logically perfect language that would eliminate ambiguity and vagueness. This would reveal the true structure of reality.
2. Ordinary Language Philosophy: (e.g., Austin, later Wittgenstein): argued that philosophical problems arise from distorting ordinary language. The focus should be on understanding how language is actually used in everyday contexts.

Criticisms of the Linguistic Turn: