One of the nonsense descriptions of analytic philosophy is that one is required to write in ‘clear’ prose. This is yet another bit of rationalist nonsense.
—“it is characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision, often making use of formal logic, conceptual analysis, and, to a lesser degree, mathematics and the natural sciences.”—
The analytic philosophy movement (anglo) evolved out of the anglo predisposition for legal prose, the conversion of mathematics from prose to symbols, and the (desperate) desire of philosophy to find a pretense of calling itself a science.
As far as I know the movement is dead, as have been most philosophical movements. At present, I am not sure much philosophy exists outside of a study of the evolution of math, logic, science, law, politics, and theology.
So, it’s not that analytic prose must be clearer per se, in the sense that the average idiot should be able to understand it in colloquial prose (we leave that to the left and the europeans) – it’s that it must be constructed out of terms, phrases, and sentences that are logically testable, and free of analogy, the imaginary, and the phenomenal(experiential) – and the undecidable left to scientific investigation.
Or as I would say it: it must be stated as mathematical, logical, operational, or scientific argument under natural law.
The problem is that:
1) While relations are constant in mathematics they are also trivially simple (positional).
2) There are always more dimensions in a comparison of references than there are constant relations (this is a truism).
3) Closure does not exist (overplay contradiction)
Argh. I don’t want to go through all this again….
Rationalism is usable only for interpretation of scriptural law. It evolved out of it. (Pilpul and Critique).
Justified true belief is nonsense. No amount of justification will determine what is true. It is only survival from criticism that determinse a truth candidate, and justification merely explains one of the roads to rome (understanding).