David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Pierre Wagner (ed.), Carnap's Logical Syntax of Language. Palgrave Macmillan (2009)
Providing a principled characterization of the distinction between logical and non-logical expressions is a longstanding issue in the philosophy of logic. In the Logical Syntax of Language, Carnap proposes a syntactic solution to this problem, which aims at grounding the claim that logic and mathematics are analytic. Roughly speaking, his idea is that logic and mathematics correspond to the largest part of science for which it is possible to completely specify by "syntactic" means which sentences are valid and which are not. Despite a renewed interest in the philosophical benefits of analyticity, both inside and outside of Carnap scholarship, Carnap's definition of logical expressions seems to have drawn too little attention. I shall argue that it is worth a second look. More precisely, my aim will be to defend this idea against some technical problems faced by Carnap's way of implementing it and against Quinean attacks on syntax-based conventionalism. Section 1 presents Carnap's definition in the context of Logical Syntax of Language, that is, how exactly the definition works, and why Carnap needs it. In section 2, I review three challenges that have been raised in the literature, and I propose to revise the definition accordingly. I argue that its modified version is immune to the previous challenges, and, to some extent, immune to new challenges as well. In the last section, I suggest that the definition has a philosophical interest of its own, because standard Quinean objections are not as conclusive as one might think when attention is paid to the fact that Carnap requires complete syntactic specification of validities
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Marc Alspector-Kelly (2002). Stroud's Carnap. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64 (2):276-302.
Edward H. Madden & Murray J. Kiteley (1962). Postulates and Meaning. Philosophy of Science 29 (1):66-78.
William W. Rozeboom (1960). A Note on Carnap's Meaning Criterion. Philosophical Studies 11 (3):33 - 38.
Robert Hudson (2010). Carnap, the Principle of Tolerance, and Empiricism. Philosophy of Science 77 (3):341-358.
Gila Sher (2008). Tarski's Thesis. In Douglas Patterson (ed.), New Essays on Tarski and Philosophy. Oxford University Press. 300--339.
Bryan G. Norton (1977). On the Metatheoretical Nature of Carnap's Philosophy. Philosophy of Science 44 (1):65-85.
Solomon Feferman (2010). Set-Theoretical Invariance Criteria for Logicality. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51 (1):3-20.
Denis Bonnay (2006). Logicality and Invariance. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 14 (1):29-68.
Enrique Casanovas (2007). Logical Operations and Invariance. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (1):33 - 60.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-05-19
Total downloads2 ( #361,549 of 1,099,909 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #189,854 of 1,099,909 )
How can I increase my downloads?