Carnap's criterion of logicality

In Pierre Wagner (ed.), Carnap's Logical Syntax of Language. Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 147-165 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,088

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Stroud’s Carnap.Marc Alspector-Kelly - 2002 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64 (2):276-302.
Logicality and Invariance.Denis Bonnay - 2006 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 14 (1):29-68.
Set-theoretical Invariance Criteria for Logicality.Solomon Feferman - 2010 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51 (1):3-20.
Tarski's thesis.Gila Sher - 2008 - In Douglas Patterson (ed.), New Essays on Tarski and Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 300--339.
Carnap, the principle of tolerance, and empiricism.Robert Hudson - 2010 - Philosophy of Science 77 (3):341-358.
A note on Carnap's meaning criterion.William W. Rozeboom - 1960 - Philosophical Studies 11 (3):33 - 38.
Postulates and meaning.Edward H. Madden & Murray J. Kiteley - 1962 - Philosophy of Science 29 (1):66-78.
Logical operations and invariance.Enrique Casanovas - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (1):33 - 60.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-05-19

Downloads
51 (#285,436)

6 months
4 (#404,301)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Denis Bonnay
Université Paris Nanterre

Citations of this work

How Tolerant Can You Be? Carnap on Rationality.Florian Steinberger - 2015 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 92 (3):645-668.
Carnap on logic and rationality.Georg Schiemer - 2017 - Synthese 194 (1):1-14.
The logical and the analytic.Richard Creath - 2017 - Synthese 194 (1):79-96.
Carnapian and Tarskian semantics.Pierre Wagner - 2017 - Synthese 194 (1):97-119.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references