B a c k g r o u n d. The ordinary language philosophy should be considered as a set of different but interconnected research projects within the Anglo-American analytical philosophy of the first half and middle of the 20th century. A common factor for these studies is the application of the method of linguistic analysis of natural language expressions to solve many classical problems for philosophy. This method replaced the prevailing idealistic concepts, and was picked up and developed in (...) Great Britain by the works and scientific explorations of J. Moore and B. Russell. It is a generally accepted opinion that the sphere of interests of representatives of the ordinary language philosophy is divided between two poles, represented by the works of L. Wittgenstein and D. Austin. M e t h o d s. In the article, the author used the method of historical-philosophical reconstruction to clarify the role, place and genesis of the ordinary language philosophy as a dominant methodology within the Anglo-American analytical philosophy of the middle of the 20th century, general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, generalization to clarify key ideas and concepts, which is the basis of the methodology of the ordinary language philosophy, as well as methods of systematization and comparison. R e s u l t s. The article clarifies the genesis of the main ideas and concepts of the philosophy of everyday language, as well as gives an example of the modern strategy of criticism of this methodological direction. The key postulates of the ordinary language philosophy age are clarified, namely: (i) the thesis that philosophical problems arise due to the incorrect use of language and must be solved by clarifying the meanings of words, (ii) philosophical analysis should not be based on the discovery of hidden logical forms of expression, and on the clarification of the necessary and sufficient conditions for the use of the expression, including the analysis of the situation of use, (iii) meaning as use, (iv) the philosophical analysis of the meaning should be carried out informally, taking into account the analysis of each specific case of the use of the expression, (v) criticism systematic theories of meaning. C o n c l u s i o n s. At the current stage of the development of analytical philosophy, there is a noticeable increase in attention to the achievements of the ordinary language philosophy. Among modern researchers and critics of this direction, the names of A. Baz, D. Nagel, S. Somes, and T. Williamson can be singled out. The presence of the interest of modern researchers indicates premature statements about the completion of the ordinary language philosophy. This concept should be rehabilitated, and its methodological apparatus should enrich the arsenal of scientific methods of modern analytical philosophers. (shrink)

B a c k g r o u n d. According to a common prejudice, especially prevalent among philosophers in the continental tradition, the philosophy of everyday language (sometimes referred to as Oxford philosophy), with its focus on what we usually say and mean, fundamentally expresses a positivist attitude. Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), who significantly contributed to the spread of this view, interprets the appeal to the concept analysis in these philosophers' writings as purely ideological: it fails to recognize the constructed (...) nature of the social and views the social as a domain of brute facts where critical thinking should cease. Therefore, to grasp the essence of the ordinary language philosophy, it is crucial to identify the prerequisites for the emergence of this philosophical style and delve into its historical context. M e t h o d s. In this article, the author employs the method of historical-philosophical reconstruction to clarify the conditions of the formation and genesis of Oxford philosophy. General scientific methods of cognition – such as analysis, synthesis, and generalization – are used to elucidate key ideas and concepts that influenced the development of Oxford philosophy's method. Additionally, methods of systematization and comparison are applied. R e s u l t s. The article identifies the historical prerequisites for the formation of Oxford philosophy, specifying the key ideas and concepts that impacted the development of the ordinary language philosophy. It clarifies the distinctions and interconnections between the concepts of the philosophy of everyday language and Oxford philosophy. C o n c l u s i o n s. For ten years following the end of the Second World War, the University of Oxford became a hub of exceptionally productive philosophical activity. This period laid the groundwork for the emergence of a new and original philosophical movement known as the "Ordinary language philosophy" or "Oxford philosophy". However, equating the ordinary language philosophy entirely with Oxford philosophy is not accurate. The former term pertains specifically to the methodology of analyzing natural language expressions in the post-World War II era. In contrast, Oxford philosophy encompasses a broader historical context, including the pre-war period of philosophical activity at the University of Oxford. Thus, Oxford philosophy should be understood as a historical-philosophical stage that ultimately led to the formation of the philosophy of everyday language. (shrink)

B a c k g r o u n d. The ordinary language philosophy (OLP) is a set of interconnected philosophical approaches that have been practiced by analytical philosophers, mainly in Great Britain and the USA, since the middle of the 20th century. Its discursive space is outlined by the methodological developments and ideas of L. Wittgenstein and J. Austin, as well as the works of G. Ryall, P. Strawson, R. Hare and N. Malcolm. P. Grice and D. Davidson are (...) often included in this school, although their works are also associated with the end of the classical period of the OLP. However, modern interest in this direction indicates the prematureness of statements about its end, setting before philosophers the task of rethinking the reasons for the temporary decline of attention and rediscovering its potential for enriching the methodology of analytic philosophy. M e t h o d s. The article used the method of historical and philosophical reconstruction to clarify the conditions for the formation of the philosophy of everyday language, general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, generalization to clarify key ideas and concepts that influenced the formation of the method of linguistic analysis, as well as methods of systematization and comparison. R e s u l t s. Within the framework of the work, the periodization of the OLP was clarified, in particular, the stage of the early OLP and the classical period, which falls on the 50s of the twentieth century, were determined and presented by the works of representatives of the University of Oxford G. Ryle, J. Austin and P. Strawson. Also, key differences between the philosophy of ideal language, which is represented by the views of A. J. Ayer and the OLP in the interpretation of J. Wisdom, in particular, a different interpretation of linguistic analysis, were identified. C o n c l u s i o n s. Linguistic analysis takes on a completely different appearance in the interpretation of the OLP compared to the ideas of A. J. Ayer. The real value of linguistic analysis within the OLP, as J. Wisdom demonstrates, lies in its ability to demonstrate the amazing dexterity of ordinary language. Ordinary language allows us to express the most subtle distinctions, nuances of meaning, intentions, and goals. This realization refutes the thesis of ideal language, which suggests that ordinary language obscures reality. On the contrary, ordinary language uses provide a reference to reality with an impressive level of detail and descriptive power that no artificial language can surpass. This ability is due not only to the function of language as a tool of representation, but also to its evolutionary adaptation to a variety of practical needs. (shrink)