Sense and Sensibilia

by J.L. Austin

Book Overview

A very nice book! This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0195003071
• ISBN13: 9780195003079
• Release Date: January 1964
• Publisher: Oxford University Press
• Length: 160 Pages
• Weight: 0.39 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.3" x 5.3" x 8.0"

Customer Reviews

Out of the schemes

The author analizes with high lucidity the meaning of sense and object of sense (all senses). His tendency is to simplify other people approaches and bring the whole subject down to the essence. This is the perfect book for an out-of-the-schemes analytic phylosophy reading. Easy to read, direct, full of examples, with a pristine style and a perfect structure. Follows a thread and helps the reader hanging to the topic. A lot has been written about the weight of this book in twentieth century analytic phylosophy; yet it is a very specialistic book, it tackles a very specific subject and entails a dialogue with other analytical thinkers. It is, in other words, a work for the specialists that has had the privilege of winning the attention of a larger audience. Recommended book for people who already have had an introduction to analytic phylosophy.

Lectures on Language Philosophy

John Langshaw Austin (March 28, 1911 - February 8, 1960) was born in Lancaster and Educated at Balliol College, before serving with MI6 during World War II. Later he became White's Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford from 1952 until his death in 1960. His language philosophy lectures form the basis for this book, which was compiled by G. J. Warnock with help from J. O. Urmson. The title was clearly chosen for its similarity to that "other" J. Austen's work, "Sense and Sensibility". J. L. Austin challenged the sense-data theories of perception of the day. Specifically he takes aim at Alfred Jules Ayer's "The Foundation of Empirical Knowledge". He also talks about H. H. Price's "Perception", and G. J. Warnock's book on "Berkeley". Even though the book suffers a little from being formed from lectures rather than Austin writing a book on the subject, Warnock has done an excellent job of compiling the lectures, and the result is a very readable book, which can be enjoyed by readers of all backgrounds. The entire book is only a little over 140 pages long, consisting of a foreword by G. J. Warnock, and then 11 sections based on the lectures which Austin gave between 1947 and 1959. It is unfortunate that Austin himself never put together a book, for it would be interesting to see how well it would match what G. J. Warnock has put together here. In lieu of that, I think readers will find this book accessible, humorous and insightful.

SENSE FOR SENSE

Bertrand Russell seems to have complained that Austin clipped philosophy's wings. Undoubtedly, Austin doesn't soar into any empyrean. There are no great abstract or abstruse constructs in his thinking, there are no special philosophical languages, one is not adrift when reading him in any uncharted sea of unfamiliar concepts. Instead, one's nose gets rubbed hard, and very entertainingly at times, in the basic realities (excuse the term for the moment) of common everyday speech. On the other hand, it was this same Russell who derided the German philosophers (including the mighty Kant himself) who followed Hume, after a period of dumbstruck silence, with highly obscure philosophies. The very opaqueness of these, opined Russell, is a good indication of how unsuccessful they were in refuting Hume. I think he was right, but I think his love of mathematical and logical modelling has led him into a similar trap when it comes to his own contemporary Austin. Hume's placid and implacable reasoning drove abstract thought into the buffers. You can't drive through them, and if you try to go around them you get into a swamp. You can go there if you want, or you can try to fly upwards into something more ostensibly sublime, or you can burrow downwards, or you can go round in circles - there is just nowhere further to go on the same lines. With Austin the problem is something similar - he's a spoiler. A contemporary of mine, irritated by my enthusiasm for Austin, called him `simple-minded'. I believe exactly the opposite is the case. When Austin states the obvious it's not from simple-mindedness, it's a matter that his mental footwork is just more agile than most and he leaves others standing. To call his reasoning common sense is true in a way but misleading. Time after time he reduces earnest theories to rubble simply by demonstrating that their authors have not taken into account the way words are used and how the circumstances of their use vary from case to case. Austin has the brainpower and articulacy to pinpoint the theoretical flaws in much highfalutin' philosophical reasoning, but I suppose it's humiliating to reflect how many a London cab-driver, lacking such powers, would have come to similar conclusions. Anyone bewildered or distressed by philosophies that seem to cast doubt on `reality' and undermine one's basic world-view should read this book. It takes concentration, but it is readable in the extreme. Most of it is concerned with refuting Ayer, who was at that time maintaining that we do not `perceive' objects `directly', but only receive (or perhaps `perceive') `sense-data' (aka `sensibilia') of such. Ayer has since recanted, but into what I don't know. Taking my own reasoning and not Austin's for a moment, this is at best an odd way to talk. To say `I see the chair' makes sense. To say `I perceive the chair' probably still makes sense, and `perceive' could be taken to include the sense of touch as well, if, say, I and the room were in darkness

An entertaining and profound look at sensory skepticism

If I had to recommend one philosophy book to the layman, this would be it. It's a lucid and entertaining look at the various arguments made for sensory skepticism. The first philosophy book to make me laugh out loud.

A thorough yet entertaining critique of logical positivism

Austine is one of the greatest philosophers that came out of Oxford's ordinary langauge school of philosophy. His text is both aggressive but pleasant to read. Much of his critique of logical positivism is still convincing, however there have been those who criticize his method (not unfairly). I highly recommend this book to any one interested in seeing an example of how to use language, as the first step, in analyzing complex positions.