“Critical Thinking: An Approach that Synthesizes Analytic Philosophy”

This paper concentrates on the resurrection of the journey of analytic philosophy from the perspective of ‘critical thinking,’ a tool of proper thought and understanding. To define an era of philosophy as analytic seems indeed a difficult attempt. However, my attempt would be to look up a few positions from the monumental thoughts of Frege, Russell, Carnap, Wittgenstein, Quine, and Putnam on their ‘analysis’ minded outlooks that developed in different ways based on logic, scientific spirit, conceptual, language etc. Analytic philosophers intend to intertwine between word and world in terms of mind and language guided by critical analysis that I think remarkably encompassed by clarity, truth, analysis, accuracy, and open-mindedness. My attempt would be to resurrect the philosophical development of analytic philosophy in different periods that were enormously nourished by the idea of ‘critical thinking’ and the analysis of natural language

Threats and challenges to the scientific representation of semantics: Carnap, Quine, and the Lessons of Semantic Skepticism

We will approach the problem of semantic skepticism by comparing Quine's view with Carnap's strategy for finding intensional equivalences that guarantee a solution to the paradox of analysis; and then we will consider how the Intensionalists use these possible solutions to save the scientificity of semantics. Quine disagrees with Carnap that plausible solutions to the question of intensional equivalence provide us with explanations for the difficult problems. These are ones where, in contrast to mere extensional indistinguishability of expressions, we need a stronger determination to choose the right interpretation. And then he has a skeptical answer to which the semanticist-linguist cannot remain insensitive. The problem is that a semanticist can only say that he has an "object" of inquiry if a normative property can be reconstructed, but that is not guaranteed by the mathematical theory used to infer intensional values. Finally, we would like to point out the relevance of skeptical doctrines about semantics that go beyond the mere haunting of relativism or quietism about meaning. Without a skeptical approach, we argue, we lose sight of the unique nature of language and its peculiar property of being an object shaped by pressures on its own ability to be theorized. &nbsp

I interpret you: Davidson and Buber

The authors provide a comparative analysis of the philosophies of communication of Donald Davidson and Martin Buber. These thinkers represent widely different traditions of thought but the comparative analysis is fruitful in both directions and is concluded by a consideration of communication ethics in the light of Davidsonian and Buberian notions of intersubjectivity

The philosophy of perceptions a Wittgensteinian perspective

The aim of this thesis is to balance a positive account of the family of concepts included in and logically involved with the concept of perception, with critical considerations of accounts that are philosophically problematic. The problematic accounts in question will range from those of Wittgenstein’s contemporaries, or near contemporaries, such as Russell, Janes and Kohler, to those of psychologists and philosophers of our own time, some, but not all, of whom profess to embrace Wittgenstein’s position; these will include the authors of a standard textbook on visual perception (Bruce and Green), Quine, Peacocke, Vesey, Anscombe, Martin, McDowell, Mulhall and Candlish, Additionally, the general nature of the problems in question will be reflected in a positive account of the concepts of acceleration (chapter 1), identity and personal identity (chapter 5), in relation to problematic accounts given by Leibniz and Parfit respectively. Crucial to this aim will be an interpretation of Wittgenstein’s position that is distinct from all those positions that profess to be Wittgensteinian, but that in fact remain in the grip of the very Cartesian / empiricist preconceptions that Wittgenstein diagnoses as the source of the problems. This will be the key to the positive account, and will depend on showing that Wittgenstein's diagnosis is essentially the same for all problems of a philosophical nature, despite its highly specific application to problems concerning various concepts in different parts of the Investigations, whose subtle differences it is equally important to discern clearly