The focus of this article is the examination of potential applications of linguistic philosophy, particularly the philosophy of natural language, to elucidate certain aspects of cosmology. Using the foundational principles of Strawson’s descriptive metaphysics as a guide, the article suggests plausible strategies for employing the tools of linguistic philosophers in analyzing key concepts within, for example, Chinese cosmology. The vast majority of researchers of Chinese cosmology used one of the two most common approaches – historical or philosophical. The historical approach (...) involved the analysis of the cosmological concept of crises through the prism of the history of the development of socio-cultural and political factors, as well as through the analysis of the historical development of the main ideas and texts. The philosophical approach considered the cosmological concept as a “philosophical school”, tending to consider cosmology in the context of comparison with the Western tradition of philosophy and science. Both approaches have significant limitations. Strawson is not a classic representative of linguistic philosophy, because his approach to using the methodology of the school of everyday language is original and allows returning metaphysics to the field of view of analytical philosophy. His metaphysical essay on the model of the relationship between language and the world does not raise questions about the criteria of existence. This is important because Chinese cosmology is closely related to cultural factors and rituals. It is the analysis of cosmology as a complete system that should become the main task of the researcher. The methodology of the school of everyday language in Strawson’s interpretation is seen as promising for providing an original interpretation and clarification of some main points of non-European cosmology. The goal is to assess whether the methodology of Ordinary Language Philosophy remains relevant for advancing cosmological and metaphysical accounts. (shrink)

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)