In his recent article, titled ‘Royaumont Revisited’, Overgaard challenges Dummett's view that one needs to go as far back as the late nineteenth century in order to discover examples of genuine dialogue between ‘analytic’ and ‘continental’ philosophy. Instead, Overgaard argues that in the 1958 Royaumont colloquium, generally judged as a failed attempt at communication between the two camps, one can find some elements which may be utilized towards re-establishing a dialogue between these two sides. Yet, emphasising this image of Royaumont (...) as a kind of battleground between ‘analytic’ and ‘continental’ philosophy obscures the plurality of philosophical approaches involved. Royaumont was the meeting point of more than two philosophical traditions, as can be shown by the divergent interests of its participants. Thus, though the potential for rapprochement between Oxford ‘linguistic philosophy’ and a certain strand of phenomenological thought may indeed be found among the discussions that took place during the colloquium, one should keep in mind that such rapprochement took place in the context of a meeting between, among others: continental ‘analytics’, Anglophone non-‘analytics’, French historians of philosophy, ‘analytic’ opponents of Oxford philosophy, Franciscan phenomenologists, and Oxonians who called their work ‘phenomenology’. (shrink)

In 1958, Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca published Traité de l'argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique, the culmination of many years study. A seminal work in philosophy and rhetoric, it aimed to bring classical Aristotelian rhetoric into the modern era and present a model of argumentation that promoted action and reasonableness. One distinctive feature of the dense account found in this work is the claim that the success of argumentation can in part be measured by the responses of the audience for which (...) it is intended. By that standard, the project of the new rhetoric appears unsuccessful, because the audience for whom Perelman (and Olbrechts-Tyteca) expressly wrote was the audience least captivated by .. (shrink)

Michael Dummett has claimed that the only way to establish communication between the analytic and Continental schools of philosophy is to go back to their point of divergence in Frege and the early Husserl. In this paper, I try to show that Dummett's claim is false. I examine in detail the discussions at the infamous 1958 Royaumont Colloquium on analytic philosophy. Many ? including Dummett ? believe that these discussions underscore the futility of attempting to bridge the gap between Continental (...) and analytical philosophies in anything like their current shapes. I argue, however, that a close study of the Royaumont proceedings rather reveals how close some of the analytical speakers were to some of their Continental listeners. (shrink)

In his late ‘A Plea for Excuses’, John L. Austin suggests labelling his philosophy ‘linguistic phenomenology’. This article examines which idea of phenomenology Austin had in mind when he coined this term and what light this sheds on his method. It is argued that the key to answering this question can be found in Merleau-Ponty’s 'Phenomenology of Perception', which Austin must have been familiar with. Merleau-Ponty presents phenomenology in a way Austin could embrace: it is a method, it aims at (...) description and uses reduction, it is a non-idealistic study of essence, and interprets intentionality as ‘operative’. In this light, Austin’s method can be appreciated more fully. (shrink)

Bu çalışmada Kant’ın ve Wittgenstein’ın felsefeleri metafiziğin olanağı bağlamında karşılaştırılmıştır. Her ikisinin felsefelerinin transcendental olup olmadığı ele alınmış ve metafizik anlayışları ortaya konmuştur. Metafiziğe karşı tutumları benzer olan iki düşünürün metafizik konusunda neden farklı sonuçlara vardıkları sorgulanmıştır. Dolayısıyla burada Kant’ın sentetik apriori önermelerin olanağı ile metafiziğin olanağı arasında kurduğu ilişki ifade edilmelidir. Kant’a göre bilgi olmanın ölçütü sentetik apriori yargıların olanaklı olmasıyla ilişkilidir. Wittgenstein’ın birinci dönemindeki felsefe anlayışında da benzer yönler bulunmaktadır. Bu benzerlik de, burada, onun dil ile dünya arasında (...) kurduğu ilişki bağlamında ortaya konulmuştur. Buna göre düşünülebilir olan ile düşünülebilir olmayan arasında çizdiği sınır dilin sınırlarıyla belirlenmektedir. Ne var ki, dilin sınırlarının dışına ise çıkılamaz. Sonuç olarak Kant’ın ve Wittgenstein’ın felsefeleri transcendental öğeler içermekle birlikte iki düşünürün de, metafiziğin olanağı konusunda farklı düşünceleri vardır. Önemli olan bunun sebebidir. (shrink)