RICK posted in #truth:

The linguistic turn occurring in the minds of various philosophers during the first half of our century has led to the conclusion that resolving the traditional philosophical problems means dissolving them by means of the logical analysis of the language in which they are formulated. The spread of this insight, which presents something truly novel, is probably the most significant event in the history of twentieth-century philosophy; at the same time, however, it is the source of profuse misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Rick, two currents in philosophical thinking characterize the 20th century. One, Existentialism, appeals to individual responsibility. In a subtle way, it tells people that they should not place their fate in gods' hands, but on their own acts. Basically, it is a way of thinking that postulates free will, with a humanistic consciousness.

Linguistic Analysis, and derivatives, the second current, states that there is no sense in looking for ethereal truths, and that the only valid subject for the search of reality is the analysis of language, since it is the means that people utilize for accurate intercommunication.

Another movement in the realm of philosofical musings is the so-called Dynamic-Scientific Philosophy (D-SP) or Hyperphilosophy. It pretends to be the philosophy of philosophies, because it is scientifically determined, and changing as new facts are revealed by scientific observation and experiment. Considering that philosophy is mainly interested in people, the fact that mankind has been evolutioning makes Darwinism an essence of D-SP. It also is well aware of the fact that H. sapiens, us, besides having evolutioned from previous species, is evolving, and fast lately.
However, being a late development in the 20th century, D-SP is practically unknown, being also quite esoteric, understandable by a few. It was fated to make its appearance as a corollary of the fast evolvements of the past two decades, which revealed undreamed-of vistas of the mind, with its paradigmatic function: THINKING (and Meta-thinking).

Rick, you are positing, as far as interpret your phrases, that Linguistic Analytic Philosophy has been misunderstood, which is no surprise, considering that many people have much difficulty in communicating. D-SP stresses the need for clear, concise, language. It commands: Be unambiguous! But not in art or literature...

---Many of the proponents and followers of the linguistic turn, have come to the conclusion that this turn amounts to the ultimate word on philosophy, meaning the end of philosophy in the traditional sense, and the rise of a new kind of scientifico-philosophical thinking shaped by Cartesian rigor.

Many years ago, my brother, while we were playing chess, told me that he had found thay playing that game was very useful to learn to play better that game. We closed the board, and ceased to play chess altogether... The followers of the linguistic turn learn to play linguistic games, of great interest, but of little impact in the understanding of the world. I posit that philosophy is not ending, but just starting, and rapidly evolving. There are dozens of D-SP essays and dialogs on the subjects of that discipline.

Formal logic, viewed as the means to uncover the True Structure of language and consequently the True Structure of the world, has moved to the center stage of philosophy. However great the significance of the linguistic turn, and the employment of logical means in philosophical analysis- this idolization is unwarranted.

Here we concur, yet my motivation for continuing this dialogue with you, repairs to my teacher vein. I wish the readers of this List to understand what is all this about.
Therefore, for their sake, I have to make the following clarification. The word "formal" derives from Latin 'forma', yet its origin harks back to the Greek philosopher Plato. It is equivalent to 'Idea' and 'Universal.' Thus, 'formal' and 'ideal' delve with the pure abstractions that serve as a mother-board for specific, concrete ideas. (A concrete cat is a derivative of the idea CAT.)
Formal logic is therefore, the application of symbols, representative of the abstract, to derive from them specific situations of logical reasoning. It is a kind of algebra, where a2=b2+c2. Thus, formal logic is also called symbolic logic. For more on the subject, I must refer the interested readers to D-SP essays on Plato vs. Aristotle. It is understandable that you cannot agree with linguistic pretensions of being the exponents of The Truth.

I simply maintain that the import of logic for philosophy is neither that it lets us get hold of meanings in an explicit way, nor does it show us the Real Structure of the world; a structure otherwise obscured by language. It offers us vantage points from which we can comprehend the vast variety of language, and consequently, of the world that we cope with by means of it.

Yes, yes! The study of Language as a meta-subject (What is Language?) leads to the understanding of its construction, evolution and evolvement, and of its impact in the world. A most significant conclusion is that H. sapiens (us) is wired from birth to speak. It comes naturally. But writing, ah! that's different. Because it is of recent creation. In fact, I have posited that it is writing what allowed for H. spiens appearance. More recently, I have come to the yet unpublished thought that purposefully tracing lines was the start of writing and drawing. The latter was easier to develop, and I posit here that the paintings found on caves, as far as 26,000 years ago, are in fact writings! Hieroglyphics and other systems, culminating in alphabetic letters, are sophisticated drawings. The letter A started as a drawing of an ox head (look at it inverted). it is the Aleph, the Alpha. In cabbalistic terms, letters are God's essenses.