Angielski
It is neither far-fetched nor over-modest to assume that some readers will feel that another book on philosophical analysis is superfluous, seeing that there are at present a number of fine books, essays or col lections of essays on the subject. Part of the reason which makes me hope that the present book is not superfluous is that its aim is different from that of many of these books or essays. What I myself have at tempted to do is to outline my own views regarding the nature and possible types and forms of philosophical analysis: the result of sustained reflection on the subject for the past few years. The methods of analy sis that are here regarded as "proper," and in a greater or lesser degree philosophically useful methods are not, in their general features, really anything new. They are advocated or are actually being practised by different contemporary philosophers; and some of them have a long and hallowed history behind them. However, the present work attempts to present these methods in a form or manner which, it is hoped, will make them acceptable, or less inacceptable, to philosophers with widely-divergent attitudes or biases. An important feature of the book is that no one method or type of method is regarded as the proper method or type of method of philosophical analysis to the exclusion of others; in sharp contrast to the views or practice of a considerable number of contemporary philosophers.
