ABSTRACT

In 1942 in his article ‘Moore’s Notion of Analysis’ 2 Langford remarked that Moore had not attempted to apply his method of analysis to the notion of analysis itself, and he believed that Moore had not ‘attempted to examine systematically the question what relation it is that must hold between an analysandum and an analysans in order that the latter should correctly analyse the former’. 3 Since that date, however, the situation has radically altered; with the publication of the reply to Langford, 4 the article ‘Russell’s “Theory of Descriptions” ’, 5 the Commonplace Book, 6 and, most importantly, the Lectures on Philosophy, 7 we are now in a very much better position to state Moore’s views as to the nature of analysis. Having said this, I must immediately add a qualification. Strictly it might be more correct to say that we are now in a very much better position to comment on Moore’s use of the word ‘analysis’ ; certainly, there is some evidence to suggest that Moore would have preferred this amended description. For example, when Langford said 8 that he wished to ‘induce Professor Moore to state more explicitly his own position regarding the nature of analysis’ Moore replied ‘I think that what Mr Langford must primarily want is a statement as to how I myself have intended to use, and, so far as I know, actually used, the word “analysis”. Other people may have used it in different senses, but I do not think that he wants me to state my position with regard to what they may have meant by it’. 1