Analytic philosophy ends in meaninglessness-is nonsense

This thesis attempts, by way of a case study showing that thought cannot have any content, irreducible substrate, or essence, to substantiate the Madhyamika Buddhist demonstrations that all theses, all philosophy, all science, all views, reduce to foolishness, absurdity, or meaninglessness.

The consequences of this thesis for philosophy are numerous. Firstly this thesis initiates a program of research via reductio ad absurdum argumentation that debunks and invalidates essentialist programs of research in other traditions. Secondly with the necessary truth that thought can not be constituted by any sui generis medium basis, or essence, the phenomenological search via eidetic reduction for the essence of thought is invalidated and untenable. Similarly some characterisations of analytic philosophy are made untenable. Analytic philosophy, in Dummett's characterisation, gives priority to language over thought. In this tradition by arguing that language is constitutively involved in thought this guarantees that we can analyse philosophically thought by focusing on thoughts mode of expression-because thoughts are formulated and constituted by language. The necessary truth that thoughts are not and cannot be constituted by language (or anything for that matter) means the analytical philosophical tradition of Dummett becomes untenable. Thirdly, as a corollary, what equally becomes untenable is the program of diminishing the ?'thinkable' by diminishing the range of thought, as instigated, in Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty-Four, by Ingsoc, with its idea of Newspeak , (where it is assumed, like Dummett's analytic philosophy, that "… thought is dependant on words" ). Fouthly, a language philosophy of the Sapir-Whorf kind becomes untenable as well. It is a short step from analytical philosophy arguments that thought is constituted by language to the claim that since languages are distinct from each other then there must be distinct thought and ?'ratiocination'. In other words different language users think differently to each other. Fifthly, if we accept on the contrary that Aristotelian logic is no epistemic condition for truth then the whole of philosophy becomes untenable and invalidated. Philosophical texts are tracts which in the main contain arguments for a particular point of view based upon Aristotelian logic (see chapter four). If this logic is not an epistemic condition of truth then the truths these texts discover have in fact no epistemic worth.