Claim. Analytical philosophy’s reduction of philosophy to logical analysis of language grasped only the intellectual (logos) aspect of language while ignoring the emotional (pathos) aspect, missing that language exists originally to actualize love.
Elaboration. Analytical philosophy holds that the main task of philosophy is the logical analysis of linguistic structures. Lee tracks its two phases. Logical positivism (Schlick, Carnap; building on Russell’s and early Wittgenstein’s ‘logical atomism’) treated the world as an agglomeration of atomic facts, restricted correct knowledge to empirically verified propositions, assigned all factual studies to science, and aimed at one ideal artificial language (the language of physics) common to all sciences. Its mottos were anti-metaphysics, analysis of language, and scientism. The limitations became clear once it was realized that scientific knowledge itself rests on unverified propositions and that logical positivism’s own assertions were dogmatic (Analytical Philosophy).
The ordinary language school (Moore, Ryle) then abandoned the artificial-language project, settling for clarifying concept-meaning and uncovering logical structure within ordinary languages, and easing the anti-metaphysical posture.
Lee’s structural critique cuts deeper than the school’s own self-correction. Language, in Unification Thought, is formed through inner developmental give-and-receive action with two aspects: an intellectual aspect (logos) centered on reason and an emotional aspect (pathos) centered on emotional feeling. Analytical philosophy grasped only logos. But language originally exists to actualize love, and its logical structure is merely a necessary condition for that purpose. The use of language is the expression of thought, and is a kind of creative activity whose center is Heart. An emotional element centered on love plays the subjective role in the formation of thought.
By engaging only in logical analysis ‘from beginning to end,’ analytical philosophy ‘came to disregard the creative aspect and the value-created aspect of thought formed through language.’ This is Lee’s strongest humanistic charge against the analytic tradition: that severing logos from pathos and Heart yields a philosophy of language unable to account for why humans speak at all. Worth a thread once a counter atomic exists — analytic philosophers will reply that emotional and value-laden language is precisely what their successors (speech-act theory, expressivism) addressed.
See also. analytic-philosophy-wrong-to-separate-fact-from-value, love-is-the-source-of-truth-goodness-beauty, modern-axiology-failed-greek-and-christian-decline