David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Inquiry 5 (1-4):260-264 (1962)
A version of the so?called paradox of analysis is enunciated which involves two principles of synonymy, referred to respectively as that of substitution and that of triviality. It is argued that for most ?familiar? concepts of synonymy the former principle can be maintained whereas the latter one has to be rejected. I deal with some solutions to the paradox that have been proposed or discussed by Carnap, Lewy, Feyerabend and Hare, and adhere to Carnap's view that the puzzle arises from the use of unclarified and imprecise notions of synonymy
|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
Leonard Linsky (1949). Some Notes on Carnap's Concept of Intensional Isomorphism and the Paradox of Analysis. Philosophy of Science 16 (4):343-347.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
S. D. Rieber (1994). The Paradoxes of Analysis and Synonymy. Erkenntnis 41 (1):103 - 116.
Dennis Earl (2007). A Semantic Resolution of the Paradox of Analysis. Acta Analytica 22 (3):189-205.
Jeff Snapper (2012). The Liar Paradox in New Clothes. Analysis 72 (2):319-322.
José Luis Ferreira & Jesús Zamora Bonilla (2008). The Surprise Exam Paradox, Rationality, and Pragmatics: A Simple Game‐Theoretic Analysis. Journal of Economic Methodology 15 (3):285-299.
Nicholas J. J. Smith (2000). The Principle of Uniform Solution (of the Paradoxes of Self-Reference). Mind 109 (433):117-122.
James Levine (2001). On Russell's Vulnerability to Russell's Paradox. History and Philosophy of Logic 22 (4):207-231.
I. Douven (2012). The Sequential Lottery Paradox. Analysis 72 (1):55-57.
Erik J. Wielenberg (2001). The New Paradox of the Stone Revisited. Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):261-268.
Lennart (1962). Comments on the Paradox of Analysis. Inquiry 5 (1-4):260 – 264.
Added to index2010-08-10
Total downloads11 ( #290,979 of 1,789,933 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #423,018 of 1,789,933 )
How can I increase my downloads?