ABSTRACT
In the earlier discussion of the contrast between fact and language the elusiveness of both terms was stressed. In both classifications there is a reference to certain background principles which are to be contrasted with their application in observation. Just as the elusiveness of the term ‘fact’ had not been exhaustively tracked in earlier discussions, so the term ‘language’ still presents ambiguities. For acceptance of a background language as necessary for the identification of facts is quite compatible with their independent observation in the required sense. Nevertheless to recommend philosophers to direct their enquiries more consciously towards those of other disciplines may be misleading. It is perhaps not surprising that linguistic philosophy might have some bearing on other enquiries into language. The revolutionary insistence on the importance of language, and the exploration of intellectual pathology in the production of meaningless or empty questions, are necessary additions to be made to the Cartesian scheme.
