Notes
I mention only “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism,”,Monist, 28:495–527 (1918);ibid., 29:32–63, 190–222, 345–80 (1919), especially pp. 60 and 202ff;Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1919);Our Knowledge of the External World (New York: Norton, 1914); “Reply to Criticisms,” inThe Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, P. A. Schilpp, editor (Evanston, Ill.: Library of Living Philosophers, 1946), p. 698. Since Russell, in the last mentioned book, deals with theform of sentences, as far as I know for the first time, having dealt in previous publications only with the forms of propositions and facts, I presume he has recognized that the difficulties connected with the "constituents" of propositions and fact are insur-mountable. The following discussion will therefore deal with sentential equiformity only.
Cf. the next paragraph.
These definitions, as well as the concluding paragraphs of this paper are of moderate accuracy only. Stricter definitions are given by R. Carnap in hisLogical Syntax of Language (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Truebner & Co., 1937), pp. 169–70. See also my elaboration of these definitions in “On Syntactical Categories,"Journal of Symbolic Logic, 15:1–16 (1950).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bar-Hillel, Y. Comments on logical form. Philos Stud 2, 26–29 (1951). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02199419
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02199419