Talk:Ordinary language philosophy

message: This article needs to be extended and elaborated upon by someone who knows enough about ordinary language philosophy. While not bad as it is, I think this article should be redone, and extended, so as to describe ordinary language philosophy in much more depth, and the various philosophers associated with it (insofar as the ideas are pertinent to the subject). Is anyone willing to do this?
Kevin L. 06:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamp... 

message: Is there a link missing to archived discussion?  I thought I had entered discussion of the failure of ordinary language to describe the quantum world, but I don't see it or a link to an archive.  David R. Ingham 05:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: I've tracked down a number of sources and provided details of where to find them, provided sources for citation requests, and added some statements from these new sources. It looks to me as though these changes address the problems that led to the warning templates at the top of the page, so I have removed them. If someone thinks they still apply, please provided some guidance as to your reservations here on the Talk page and don't just add a template without commenting. Brews ohare (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: In this revert, Snowded removes the statement: 
:Ordinary language philosophy is one of two branches of linguistic philosophy, the other being logical positivism.[1] 
:::::[1] 
The reason Snowded provides for his objection is: "Source does NOT support a general statement about the field". Now, Sally Parker-Ryan says:
I would conclude that the removed statement can be made exactly parallel to the source if put in this form:
:Ordinary language philosophy is a branch of linguistic philosophy closely related to logical positivism.[1] 
:::::[1] 
Perhaps Snowded will find this version acceptable? And, if not, perhaps Snowded can elucidate? Brews ohare (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but it still reads like an essay overall ----Snowded TALK 04:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What  Sally Parker-Ryan says 

message: There is now somewhat of an edit war about the templates. They should remain, I think. The section titled "Central Ideas" reads basically as "Original Research". It is a series of flawed arguments that attempt to establish some philosophical truth about the word "reality" by very clearly not looking at how the word 'reality' is used, but instead by extrapolating through a superficial analysis of the word 'real' and the phrase 'in reality'. There is nothing there to suggest that actual "ordinary language" philosophers actually adhere to such naive analysis - which is the reason it remains unsourced - and I very much doubt they do (if so, please link to actual quotes from at least one of them reducing the meaning of 'reality' to the use of 'real' or 'in reality'). Ninguém (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: I'm surprised at how obscure this article appears in places, and how uninformative it is in others. OLP is not a tightly defined movement like some in the history of philosophy are so I understand why this problem maybe occurs, however I don't know how useful anyone will ultimately find this entry. There are some good references cited, but as noted in other comments here, it reads like an essay/editorial in places (for example "Of course, this was and is a very controversial viewpoint").
Those general points out of the way, I have some more specific concerns.
First, the third paragraph in the introduction (quoting Grayling) - I'm not sure really what the relevance of this for someone who looking for an introduction to what OLP is. It is at best an afterthought and doesn't really address anything philosophically or historically pertinent to an introduction to OLP. If I read that in an essay I would assume it was to bolster the word count. I would propose this be removed or moved to the end somewhere.
Second, I find the Central Ideas section to be most unclear in setting out the central ideas of OLP. I would propose that this be rewritten in its entirety. 
Third, no mention of the idea that 'ordinary language is correct language' or of the paradigm case argument or of the difficulty in defining OLP?
I'm happy to slowly add edits in to make this a better article as it is most unhelpful in its current format. I'd start with the above three changes and then suggest some more. If anyone has any objections please let me know.
143.167.254.160 (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New attempt at article