Some Remarks about Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra's Advice on the Language of Philosophy
| Autor | Marco Ruffino |
| Cargo | Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro/CNPq, Brazil |
CRÍTICA, Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía. Vol. 45, No. 133 (abril 2013): 99–105
SOME REMARKS ABOUT GONZALO
RODRIGUEZ-PEREYRA’S ADVICE ON THE LANGUAGE
OF PHILOSOPHY
MARC O RUFFIN O
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro/CNPq – Brazil
ruffinomarco@gmail.com
SUM MAR Y: In this paper I discuss Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra’s notes on the p roper
language for publishing texts in analytic philosophy. I am basically in agreement
with him on the practical side, i.e., publishing in English increases the chances of
philosophical exchange with other communities. I disagree, however, if one wants to
read a stronger “should” in his advice, for there is nothing in the essence of analytic
philosophy that ties it to the English language. Finally, I end with a caveat that his
advice should not be misunderstood and degenerate into an exhortation of what I
call “linguistic laziness”.
KEY W ORD S: analytic philosophy, dialog, criticism, linguistic laziness, history of
analytic philosophy
RES UME N: En este artículo discuto la nota de Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra sobre la
lengua apropiada para publicar textos en filosofía analítica. Básicamente coincido
con él en el aspecto práctico, es decir, que publicar en inglés aumenta la posibilidad
de interacción con otras comunidades. Sin embargo, discrepo si acaso el “ debería”
cobra más fuerza en sus consideraciones, ya que no hay nada en la esencia de la
filosofía analítica que la ate a la lengua inglesa. Concluyo con la advertencia de que
su consejo no debe ser mal interpretado y degenerar en un exhorto a lo que yo
denomino “flojera lingüística”.
PAL ABR AS C LAV E: filosofía analítica, diálogo, crítica, flojera lingüística, historia de
la filosofía analítica
Although Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra is a very fine philosopher, his
note “The Language of ‘Analytic’ Philosophy” is not a piece of philo-
sophical work properly speaking. It is not even a work on metaphilos-
ophy, i.e. it is not about the nature of philosophical problems or the
proper methodology for solving them. His note is concerned with a
strictly practical question, namely, the language in which one should
write and publish original philosophical work. Hence, my comments
on Gonzalo’s note are not meant to be philosophical either, but only
as remarks about the practicality of doing philosophy in English.
Gonzalo restricts his discussion to contemporary analytic philosophy;
I will follow him and simply write ‘philosophy’ meaning by it only
contemporary analytic philosophy. (Like Gonzalo, I will not try to
explain what I understand by analytic philosophy, but will rely on
a common understanding of it. He is silent about formal logic, but
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba
COPYRIGHT TV Trade Media, Inc.
COPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
COPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
