PG was not the only one highlighting "confusion over words". The more notable philosopher Wittgenstein also expressed this idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

PG was not the only one highlighting "confusion over words". The more notable philosopher Wittgenstein also expressed this idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#Private_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#Pr... The TFA proposes that 2 other branches of philosophy 1) ethics and 2) epistemology have not been affected by "confusion over words". I think Wittgenstein would say that must be false because those 2 subject areas also are discussed using the mechanism of words. You can't escape "words" because philosophy (any branch) can't be discussed any other way. I believe the TFA is arguing incorrectly because he thinks PG's criticism of philosophy is about "word confusion" when the higher meta-issue is that the "words" themselves handicaps all of philosophy.