David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 159 (2):299-319 (2012)
This paper investigates the relation between Carnap and Quine’s views on analyticity on the one hand, and their views on philosophical analysis or explication on the other. I argue that the stance each takes on what constitutes a successful explication largely dictates the view they take on analyticity. I show that although acknowledged by neither party (in fact Quine frequently expressed his agreement with Carnap on this subject) their views on explication are substantially different. I argue that this difference not only explains their differences on the question of analyticity, but points to a Quinean way to answer a challenge that Quine posed to Carnap. The answer to this challenge leads to a Quinean view of analyticity such that arithmetical truths are analytic, according to Quine’s own remarks, and set theory is at least defensibly analytic.
|Keywords||Carnap Quine Analyticity Explication Mathematics|
|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
W. V. Quine (1960). Word and Object. The MIT Press.
Rudolf Carnap (1962). Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago]University of Chicago Press.
W. V. Quine (1953/1980). From a Logical Point of View. Harvard University Press.
Paul Benacerraf (1965). What Numbers Could Not Be. Philosophical Review 74 (1):47-73.
Rudolf Carnap (1988). Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. University of Chicago Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Cory Juhl (2009). Analyticity. Routledge.
Marian David (1996). Analyticity, Carnap, Quine, and Truth. Philosophical Perspectives 10:281 - 296.
Paul A. Gregory (2003). Two Dogmas'–All Bark and No Bite? Carnap and Quine on Analyticity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (3):633–648.
Paul Gregory (2003). 'Two Dogmas'--All Bark and No Bite? Carnap and Quine on Analyticity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (3):633 - 648.
Paul A. Gregory (2003). 'Two Dogmas' -- All Bark and No Bite? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (3):633-648.
Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (2001). Boghossian on Analyticity. Analysis 61 (4):293–302.
Paul Gregory (2003). Putting the Bite Back Into. Principia 7 (1-2):115-129.
Richard Creath (1991). Every Dogma has its Day. Erkenntnis 35 (1-3):347-389.
John P. Burgess (2004). Quine, Analyticity and Philosophy of Mathematics. Philosophical Quarterly 54 (214):38–55.
Paul Artin Boghossian (1996). Analyticity Reconsidered. Noûs 30 (3):360-391.
Olaf Mueller (1998). Does the Quine/Duhem Thesis Prevent Us From Defining Analyticity? Erkenntnis 48 (1):85-104.
Olaf L. Müller (2002). From Within and From Without. Two Perspectives on Analytic Sentences. In Wolfram Hinzen & Hans Rott (eds.), Belief and meaning: Essays at the interface. Deutsche Bibliothek der Wissenschaften
Verena Mayer (2003). Implicit Thoughts: Quine, Frege and Kant on Analytic Propositions. Grazer Philosophische Studien 66 (1):61-90.
Added to index2011-02-12
Total downloads102 ( #36,495 of 1,789,829 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #82,833 of 1,789,829 )
How can I increase my downloads?