The Contemporary Significance of Ordinary Language Philosophy

Posted: 2 de April de 2013 by Fernando Furtado in Call for Papers, Event, News
CONF: “The Contemporary Significance of Ordinary Language Philosophy” NWS/ILWG 2013 Turku-Åbo, Finland May 24-25 – register now!

The Contemporary Significance of Ordinary Language Philosophy

The IV Symposium of Nordic Wittgenstein Society (NWS), arranged in cooperation
with the International Ludwig Wittgenstein Society (ILWG), will take place in
Åbo (Turku), Finland, May 24-25, 2013.

The registration form is now open on the NWS website. Please note that
the number of participants will be limited, so take care to enroll as
soon as possible! The last day of registration is May 1.

Welcome to Åbo!

The arrangement committee,
Martin Gustafsson, Lars Hertzberg, Hugo Strandberg and Yrsa Neuman

The Contemporary Significance of Ordinary Language Philosophy

May 24-25, 2013

Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland

Plenary speakers: Avner Baz (Tufts University), James Conant (University
of Chicago), Martin Gustafsson (Åbo Akademi University), Nathaniel
Hansen (University of Reading), Don S. Levi (University of Oregon),
Felix Mühlhölzer (University of Göttingen), Sally Parker Ryan (Florida).

In recent years, there has been a revival of interest in the main
representatives of the so-called ordinary language tradition in 20th
century analytic philosophy. The overall aim of the conference is to
contribute to this revival of interest, by considering how the works of
thinkers in this tradition might be still be relevant, and how careful
investigations of ordinary language use can matter to issues at the top
of today’s philosophical agenda. In this connection, it will be
important to take into account the many differences in philosophical
outlook and methodology that exist between philosophers such as
Wittgenstein, Austin, Ryle, Strawson and so on. The question of how deep
these differences go, and, indeed, whether we can talk of an ordinary
language “tradition” here at all, should lead us to consider the
character of the contemporary revival mentioned above. To what extent
can this revival usefully be described as a unified movement motivated
by a common dissatisfaction with more mainstream forms of analytic
philosophy? And to what extent do the differences between the various
contemporary attempts at revival make such a description misleading?

Messages to the list are archived at Current posts are also available via Facebook: Discussions should be moved to chora: enrol via



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s