He then proceeds with an examination of the picture theory developed by Wittgenstein, Carnap, and Goodman, and concludes with an examination of Patricia Churchland, Ruth Millikan, Robert Cummins, and Mark Rollins. The use of the historical development of representationalism to pose a central problem in contemporary cognitive science is unique.

This article examines how Quine and Sellars develop informatively contrasting responses to a fundamental tension in Carnap’s semantics ca. 1950. Quine’s philosophy could well be styled ‘Essays in Radical Empiricism’; his assay of radical empiricism is invaluable for what it reveals about the inherent limits of empiricism. Careful examination shows that Quine’s criticism of Carnap’s semantics in ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’ fails, that at its core Quine’s semantics is for two key reasons incoherent and that his hallmark Thesis of Extensionalism (...) is untenable. The tension in Carnap’s semantics together with Quine’s exposure of the severe limits of radical empiricism illuminate central features of Sellars’s philosophy: the fully general form of the myth of givenness, together with Sellars’s alternative Kantian characterisation of understanding; the full significance of Carnap’s distinction between conceptual analysis and conceptual explication, and its important methodological implications; the specifically pragmatic character of Sellars’s realism; and Sellars’s methodological reasons for holding that philosophy must be systematic and that systematic philosophy must be deeply historically and textually informed. This paper thus re-examines this recent episode of philosophical history for its philosophical benefits and systematic insights. (shrink)

Peter Abelard (1079–1142 ce) was the most wide‐ranging philosopher of the twelfth century. He quickly established himself as a leading teacher of logic in and near Paris shortly after 1100. After his affair with Heloise, and his subsequent castration, Abelard became a monk, but he returned to teaching in the Paris schools until 1140, when his work was condemned by a Church Council at Sens. His logical writings were based around discussion of the “Old Logic”: Porphyry's Isagoge, aristotle'S Categories and (...) On Interpretation and boethius'S textbook on topical inference. They comprise a freestanding Dialectica (“Logic”; probably c.1116), a set of commentaries (known as the Logica [Ingredientibus], c. 1119) and a later (c. 1125) commentary on the Isagoge (Logica Nostrorum Petititoni Sociorum or Glossulae). In a work Abelard called his Theologia, issued in three main versions (between 1120 and c.1134), he attempted a logical analysis of trinitarian relations and explored the philosophical problems surrounding God's claims to omnipotence and omniscience. The Collationes (“Debates,” also known as “Dialogue between a Christian, a Philosopher and a Jew”; probably c.1130) present a rational investigation into the nature of the highest good, in which the Christian and the Philosopher (who seems to be modeled on a philosopher of pagan antiquity) are remarkably in agreement. The unfinished Scito teipsum (“Know thyself,” also known as the “Ethics”; c.1138) analyses moral action. (shrink)

It is a shame that this volume which was started a decade ago should have been so long in preparation. The result is that many of the critical papers have been superseded by more recent investigations. Nevertheless, there are a number of respects in which this is an extremely valuable book. It contains Carnap's autobiography, written in the direct and careful style that is so characteristic of his work. Carnap also patiently and systematically answers the objections raised by his critics. (...) And there is an invaluable annotated bibliography of his writings. But the dominant impression of the volume as a whole is that of summing up the contribution and limitations of one of the twentieth-century's most important and influential philosophers.—R. J. B. (shrink)

Originally published in 1958. A study in the logical foundations of modern theoretical semantics, this book is concerned with notions of designation and consistency as well as denotation and truth. It presents several semantical theories, each of which with what were new concepts or treatments from the author. Talking at a time when semantical theory was gained great ground, this book also looks at the methodology of the sciences and the semantics of scientific language alongside analysis of meaning and expression. (...) It is influenced by the writings of Carnap, Church, Frege, Goodman, Quine, Russell and Tarski. (shrink)

Originally published in 1958. A study in the logical foundations of modern theoretical semantics, this book is concerned with notions of designation and consistency as well as denotation and truth. It presents several semantical theories, each of which with what were new concepts or treatments from the author. Talking at a time when semantical theory was gained great ground, this book also looks at the methodology of the sciences and the semantics of scientific language alongside analysis of meaning and expression. (...) It is influenced by the writings of Carnap, Church, Frege, Goodman, Quine, Russell and Tarski. (shrink)

Heidegger ist durch seinen eigenwilligen Sprachgebrauch einer der dunkelsten Denker unserer Zeit. Dies ist jedoch kein Zeichen von Willkür oder unbegründeter Sucht nach Ürsprünglichkeit, für ihn hängt die Sprache wesentlich mit seinem Philosophieren zusammen (1). Vor allem ist von Seiten der angloamerikanischen Sprachanalytiker an diesem Sprachgebrauch viel Kritik geübt, u.a. durch Carnap. Ausdrücke wie „das Nichtige nichtet” finden in den empirischen Situationen kein Echo, entziehen sich der Methode der Verifikation, erfüllen keine einzige Wahrheitsvoraussetzung und können keine Protokollsätze sein (2). Dennoch, (...) Heideggers Methode kann, vermöge der Art seiner Untersuchung, der Frage nach dem Sinn des Seins, nicht die der logischen Analyse sein ; sie ist die phänomenologische Methode, die für die Ontologie in ihren Fragen nach dem Sinn des Seins die angemessenste Methode ist (3). Heidegger meint, daß die Vorsokratiker in ihrer dichterischen Formgebung dem ursprünglichen Sinn des Seins äußerst nahegekommen sind. Seine Intention beschränkt sich nicht allein auf eine etymologische Analyse von Begriffen wie „physis”, „logos”, „aletheia” usw., wodurch er das Sein zu entbergen sucht, er will mit dieser Analyse auch und vor allem ein neues Fundament legen für unser heutiges Denken und unsere Einstellung dem Sein gegenüber (4). Um dies deutlich zu machen, wählen wir Heideggers Auseinandersetzung mit dem Logosbegriff bei Heraklit im Fragment 50 (Diels), den er in Vorträge und Aufsätze III (Pfüfflingen 1967, S. 3-25) einer minuziösen Untersuchung unterzieht. Heidegger fragt sich, was die ursprüngliche Bedeutung von Logos ist, und er sucht zu beweisen, daß „legein” nicht ursprünglich „sprechen” bedeutet, sondern in dem deutschen „legen” (vorlegen, darlegen, überlegen) wiedergefunden wird, „legein” konnte sprechen bedeuten, weil sprechen besagt : „Beisammen-vor-uns-liegen-lassen”. Deshalb kann nach Heidegger die Sprache nicht als „Verlautbarung” oder „Bedeuten” gedeutet werden. Ausdruck und Bedeutung sind beide Phänomene der Sprache als das „Beisammen-voruns-liegen-lassen” des Unverborgenen in seiner Unverborgenheit. Das Sprechen muß nach Heidegger den Spielraum der Unverborgenheit, mit dem das Hören korrespondieren muß, offenlassen. Das Hören nach dem Logos ist ein „homologein”, dem Logos zugehörig. Ist man dem Logos zugehörig, so ist man in dem Sinne weise, daß man sich in das schickt (geschicklich), was dem Menschen zugewiesen ist : Heidegger widersetzt sich der herrschenden Interpretation von Fr. 50. Das „Eins-Alles” zielt nicht auf den Inhalt der Verkündigung des Logos, sondern vielmehr auf die Weise, in der der Logos anwesend ist, die Weise, in der er wirkt und wohl als das Eine, das alles ausschließt, das lichtende Sammeln, Zusammentragen, das Bergen aller Gegebenheiten in die Offenheit der Welt. Er birgt und entbirgt. Unverborgenheit und Verborgenheit sind Pole dieses einen Seinsereignisses. So bleiben die Gegensätze innerhalb des Lichtkreises der Unverborgenheit bestehen und aufeinander angewiesen. Heidegger identifiziert den Logos mit dem „Hen-Panta”, weil „ Hen-Panta” sagt, was der Logos ist, und der Logos sagt, wie „Hen-Panta” anwesend ist. Wenn der Mensch die Sprache des Logos spricht, sammelt er auch die Dinge, läßt er sie vor-sichliegen, bringt er die Anwesenheit der Dinge in ihrem Anwesen zur Sprache, läßt sie zu ihrem Recht kommen, dabei durch das ursprüngliche „Einen” des Logos geleitet, das „Hen-Panta” ist. Heidegger weist darauf hin, daß dies kein pantheistischer Gedankengang ist. Heraklit will, so meint er, vor dem Geheimnis dieser Worte stehenbleiben, um so das Geheimnis als Geheimnis zu erkennen. Er meint, daß der durch die Vorsokratiker geöffnete Weg durch die Denkentwicklung seit Plato verschleiert geblieben ist. Heidegger sieht in Fr. 50 von Heraklit den stammelnden Ausdruck des noch nicht in Subjekt und Objekt aufgeteilten Seins. In dem Wort Logos dachte Heraklit das Sein des Seienden. Dieses Licht verblaßte schnell. Für Heidegger liegt die große Bedeutung Heraklits in dessen Anregung, in Übereinstimmung mit der Logossprache zu sprechen und den Weg einzuschlagen, den er uns gezeigt hat durch ein uns Offenhalten für das entbergendverbergende Sein (5). Auf wirklich geniale Weise hat Heidegger der Logosphilosophie die Gewalt seines eigenen Denkens verliehen. Diese Auslegung lehrt uns mehr über seine eigene Philosophie, als über die Heraklits. Heidegger ist gefesselt durch das mystisch-prophetische Element in Heraklits Philosophieren. So wie Heraklit der Dolmetscher der Masse sein will, die dem Logos widerspricht, obwohl sie fortwährend darüber spricht, so fühlte Heidegger sich berufen ein Hermeneut zu sein, auf dem durch die Seinsvergessenheit verdunkelten Weg des denkens nach einem neuen (An) denken des Seins. Betroffen ist Heidegger durch die Idee der Einheit, die sich in dem Logos erschließt. Der Logos offenbart sich in der Welt durch Gegensätze, in denen die Einheit sich fortwährend erneuert. Das Denken Heideggers ist von Anfang an auf das Ans-Licht-bringen des (oft) vergessenen, verborgenen Zusammenhängens gerichtet, in dem alles was ist erscheint. Aus dieser Interpretation wird deutlich, wie wertvoll eine Konfrontation der eigenen Zeit mit der Vergangenheit sein kann, angesichts der Gratie, durch die die Geschichte der Philosophie aktuell bleibt (6). Unser großes Bedenken gegen diese Interpretation ist, daß Heidegger sich keine Rechenschaft über die textkritischen Schwierigkeiten dieses Textes gegeben hat. Es ist die Frage, ob wohl Logos im ursprünglichen Text gestanden hat. Wir haben versucht, dies aufzuzeigen. Gleichfalls ist es sehr bedenklich, daß Heidegger „legein” und „legen” etymologisch im Zusammenhang sieht, was deshalb nicht möglich ist, weil beide Wörter auf im Wesen verschiedene indoeuropäische Wurzeln zurückgehen. Unsere Schlußfolgerung ist, daß Heideggers Auslegung von Fr. 50 uns mehr über die Philosophie von Heidegger selbst, als über die Logosphilosophie von Heraklit lehrt. Es ist besonders zu bedauern, daß Heidegger, der sich gerne rühmt die Belange der Wissenschaftlichkeit zu vertreten, die für die Interpretation griechischer Texte unentbehrliche philologische Vorarbeit vernachlässigt hat. (shrink)

CENTRAL TO COHEN’S NEW THEORY OF INDUCTION IS THE CLAIM THAT THE SUPPORT GIVEN BY EVIDENCE TO A HYPOTHESIS IS NOT A FUNCTION WHICH OBEYS THE AXIOMS OF THE PROBABILITY CALCULUS. THIS CLAIM DEPENDS ON THE TRUTH OF COHEN’S INSTANTIAL COMPARABILITY PRINCIPLE. UNDER NATURAL INTERPRETATIONS OF ’SUPPORT’, THIS PRINCIPLE IS FALSE. EVEN IF IT IS TRUE UNDER OTHER INTERPRETATIONS OF ’SUPPORT’, THAT DOES NOT SHOW THAT CONFIRMATION IN CARNAP’S SENSE DOES NOT OBEY THE AXIOMS.

William Lane Craig maintains that propositions and properties are not real. Yet, if we examine his proposed nominalism and his appeal to Rudolf Carnap’s linguistic frameworks, we can find that his view depends upon their reality, even as abstract objects. By drawing upon phenomenological insights, I argue that if we pay close attention to what can be before our minds in conscious awareness, we can become aware that there is more to what is real than simple, concrete particulars, even in (...) his linguistic examples. We can become aware of the reality of Platonic, ante rem universals, including propositions and properties. (shrink)

William Lane Craig rejects Platonism (the view that uncreated abstract objects (AOs) exist) in favor of nominalism because he believes Platonism fatally compromises God’s aseity. For Craig, concrete particulars (including essences) exist, but properties do not. Yet, we use property-talk, following Carnap’s “linguistic frameworks.” There is, however, a high cost to Craig’s view. I survey his views and then explore the importance of essences. But, next, I show that his nominalism undermines them. Thus, we have just interpretations of reality. Worse, (...) nominalism undermines creation’s determinacy. Last, I suggest AOs are created, but in a more fundamental sense than Craig considers. (shrink)

The scope of this study is both ambitious and modest. One of its ambitions is to reintegrate Hegel's theory of knowledge into main stream epist~ology. Hegel's views were formed in consideration of Classical Skepticism and Modern epistemology, and he frequently presupposes great familiarity with other views and the difficulties they face. Setting Hegel's discussion in the context of both traditional and contemporary epistemology is therefore necessary for correctly interpreting his issues, arguments, and views. Accordingly, this is an issues-oriented study. I (...) analyze Hegel's problematic and method by placing them in the context of Sextus Empiricus, Descartes, Kant, Carnap, and William Alston. I discuss Carnap, rather than a Modern empiricist such as Locke or Hume, for several reasons. One is that Hegel himself refutes a fundamental presupposition of Modern empiricism, the doctrine of "knowledge by acquaintance," in the first chapter of the Phenomenology, a chapter that cannot be reconstructed within the bounds of this study. (shrink)

With the publication of this volume from the prolific pen of one of Germany's outstanding younger philosophers, the German-speaking scholarly world has a more extensive survey of key issues in the philosophy of science than the English-speaking world. The book is the first of a comprehensive work whose title is "Problems and Results in the Philosophy of Science and Analytic Philosophy." While the title of the book under consideration shows that it is primarily concerned with scientific explanation and justification, Stegmüller (...) not merely undertakes to acquaint his readers with the most important Anglo-American developments concerning these topics, but also independently develops his own ideas with respect to them and an important, if brief, feature of the volume is an appendix in which he sets forth over thirty "problems that are either unsolved or the solution of which is controversial." Without going into substantival detail, perhaps the quickest way to indicate Stegmüller's main concerns and general orientation is to note the extent of the page references in the index of names where, in descending order, one finds the names of Carl G. Hempel, to whom the volume is dedicated, R. Carnap, N. Goodman, N. Rescher, W. V. Quine, P. Oppenheim, E. Nagel, W. Dray and K. Popper. Curiously, Stegmüller indicates that, aside from Hempel, the man who has exercised the greatest influence on him has been Sir Karl Popper, but then he limits his consideration of him mainly to Popper's early exposition of explanation by reference to the breaking of a thread, while ignoring what he has to say about such topics as falsification, induction, and the problem of demarcation. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that there are no references to P. Duhem, J. Agassi, and P. Feyerabend, but there are also none to G. Bergmann, M. Bunge, P. Frank, N. R. Hanson, A. Koyré, V. Kraft, G. Radnitzky, and J. J. C. Smart, to mention just a few.--R. F. M. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:After Gödel: Platonism and Rationalism in Mathematics and LogicMark C. R. SmithRichard Tieszen. After Gödel: Platonism and Rationalism in Mathematics and Logic. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Pp. xi + 245. Cloth, $75.00.Tieszen’s new book offers a synthesis and extension of his longstanding project of bringing the method of Husserl’s phenomenology to bear on fundamental questions—both epistemological and ontological—in the philosophy of mathematics. Gödel held Husserl’s philosophy (...) in high regard, and thought that it offered the most promising avenue for an adequate understanding of the foundations of mathematical thought and practice, but Gödel himself did not give a full systematic statement of how phenomenology might carry out that project. Tieszen takes up the task in this book, which is structured around two main guiding themes. The first is to locate the sources of Gödel’s philosophical views—principally [End Page 303] in Plato, Leibniz, and of course Husserl, along with Kant as a sort of backcloth—and the second is to argue that from these materials, a promising rationalism in mathematics and logic can be consistently articulated. Along the way we also encounter a good many of Gödel’s arguments against an array of reductive positions, Hilbert’s formalism and Carnap’s “logical syntax” project among them, as well as arguments against the prospects of a mechanical or purely computational understanding of the human mind. Many of the arguments (both negative and positive) stem from a reflection on the consequences of Gödel’s landmark incompleteness results of 1931.The core of Tieszen’s positive proposals comes in chapters 4, 5, and 6: here is where we meet with “constituted Platonism,” Tieszen’s name for the rationalist, realist synthesis of Husserl’s method and Gödel’s mathematical insights. Methodologically, the starting point is the actual practice of mathematics as a human undertaking, and its conditions of possibility. At the most general level, it is characteristic of thought to be intentional, that is, to be (or try to be) about something, to have a target, to be a bearer of meaning. So it goes for thought about items in sensory awareness, about fictional objects, or about mathematical subject-matter. Concerning the latter, what we encounter in mathematical experience are frequently “phenomena that resist our will, so that we are ‘forced’ in certain directions” (170); what accounts for this resistance to our will are invariants, which have the further characteristics of repeatability—both for a single subject, and among many subjects—and availability for convergence (221), which, I take it, means availability as structures or concepts upon which many independent rational investigators will come to rest. Thinking mathematical thoughts is quite unlike thinking thoughts about fictional items, because fictions are indefinitely plastic in the face of human will. It is also unlike thought about sensory items, in that the intentional objects at issue are not available to outer sense; but from another angle it is more like thought about real material items than imaginary beings, because our mathematical thoughts are exposed to the possibility of error or misrepresentation in various ways. (An elementary example: most people think that 1 is distinct from 0.9999... repeating: this is a misrepresentation, because they are in fact identical.)The phenomenology of mathematical practice is such that we assay various conjectures and proposals about invariants already given to consciousness by previous practice, and discover what further invariant structures or concepts are revealed as necessary constraints upon the various possibilities that we can experimentally float for ourselves. Sometimes our conjectures or intentions are fulfilled, sometimes they are frustrated; but it is the very fact of fulfillment and frustration which points us to a Platonic reality. It is not the noumenal realm of the “naive” Platonist, in Tieszen’s phrase, but nevertheless an objective reality marked off “on the basis of what stabilizes or becomes invariant in our experience, on the basis of what has a history and a sedimentation that permits of further elaboration, development, constraints, surprises, and so on” (101). In something like this way, human reason and consciousness “constitute the meaning of being” of mathematical objects... (shrink)

Day argues that the meaning of "probable" is partly evaluative and partly descriptive--to say that a proposition is probable is both to recommend its assertion and to say that a certain procedure shows it to be so. The paradigm of an inductive probability judgment, which is the major concern of the book, is "The fact that all observed A's are B's makes it probable that all A's are B's." Several more complex kinds of probability judgments are distinguished and discussed in (...) detail, the author's own theory being illuminated by extensive criticism of the views of other philosophers, including Aristotle, Hume, Whewell, Mill, Peirce, Russell, Braithwaite, Carnap, and Von Wright. Philosophic problems related to induction, such as the existence of other minds and the reliability of memory, are briefly discussed. Ambitious in scope and carefully executed, the book demands, and rewards, close study.--J. R. W. (shrink)

The second edition of this book on the problem of truth and the idea of semantics is an unchanged reprint of a volume originally published in 1957. While it is formally organized into twelve chapters, it effectively falls into three parts of which the first two primarily deal with the theories of A. Tarski and R. Carnap. Aside from a brief chapter on "Semantics, Quantification Theory and Metamathematics," the final part consists of a chapter, which the author entitles "Epistemological-Theoretical Discussion (...) of Semantic Concepts." In this the longest, and for anybody acquainted with the theories of Tarski and Carnap, probably most valuable chapter of the book, Stegmüller deals with a dozen objections to the semantic conception of truth, the importance of semantic concepts for various disciplines, including logic, mathematics, epistemology, and the empirical sciences, with the interrelation between semantic linguistic analysis and Wittgensteinian ideas, and finally with Quine's criticism of the analytic--synthetic distinction and certain aspects of the ensuing discussion up to the time of the book's original publication. To ascertain the author's current ideas about many of the topics with which he deals, it is obviously necessary to turn to his more recent writings. This book stands as an example of its author's incomparable clarity of critical exposition.--R. F. M. (shrink)