DOCSLIB.ORG

On Being True Or False

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On Being True Or False On Being True or False On Being True or False: Sentences, Propositions and What is Said By Merrill Ring On Being True or False: Sentences, Propositions and What is Said By Merrill Ring This book first published 2020 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2020 by Merrill Ring All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-4177-0 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-4177-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 I. Opening the Case for a Non-Linguistic Truth-Bearer .......................... 3 II. The Case for Sentences as Truth-Bearers ........................................... 31 III. What is a Sentence? ............................................................................ 53 IV. Passing Sentence on Sentences ......................................................... 87 V. Beliefs as Truth-Bearers .................................................................. 111 VI. Propositions ..................................................................................... 133 VII. Truth-Bearers and Their Nature ...................................................... 165 Notes ....................................................................................................... 191 INTRODUCTION The question about what sort of thing has a truth-value, what kind of thing it is that is true or false, extends quite far back into the history of philosophy. At some periods of that history it has been a more prominent question than at others. We seem to be at a time when there is not much thought being expended on the topic. There are the usual scraps of discussion scattered here and there, but on the whole philosophers today are not much engaged with the issue, letting it lay fallow. That situation is probably the result of a stalemate, something that occurs in philosophy when no one has an idea that can break through the settled pattern of differing views as to the correct answer to a question. The one sign of a possible thaw is the recent reissuing (2009) of C.J.F. Williams What is Truth?1, a work, and I believe the only one, that does attempt to think through at some length what kind of thing a truth-bearer is. On the other hand, Williams’ book isn’t comprehensive enough. One major topic he dismisses out of hand is the view that sentences are the bearers of truth-value and that are consequently philosophically important items. The aim of the present book is to make the topic of what sorts of things have a truth-value more central to current philosophical occupation. The route to doing that is to provide for the first time a critically comprehensive look at the historical options and to produce an answer that goes far beyond anything that even the current best attempt, namely Williams’, has to offer. The examination here can’t be said to be complete-in raising many of the issues that must be examined in pursuit of a satisfactory answer, I have come to realize that some topics can’t be considered or adequately dealt with in a reasonably compact book. I think the major omission here is the topic of thoughts: to have tried to be fairly comprehensive about that really difficult problem would have impossibly extended this work. My initial idea was that pursuing the topic of truth-bearers was only a preliminary to the question of What is Truth? However, in attempting to do more than toss out some ideas, I came to realize that the matter was very rich, requiring investigation of many issues that at first glance seemed remote from the main concern. Who knew how much needed to be done in disentangling the contrasting conceptions of what a sentence is in philosophy and in linguistics and in arguing for a wholly new position? Can the notion of a proposition be freed from its metaphysical baggage (being a 2 Introduction transcendent object existing quite independently of human talk and thought) and retain a respectable possibility as something with a truth-value? What does Moore’s Paradox have to do with beliefs as truth-bearers? Those are some of the diverse topics that came to be examined as I tried to think my way through the larger issue. One further matter must be mentioned in these introductory remarks. I began this book quite a few years ago and have finished it only upon retirement from professing. A previous reader noticed that I had more references to philosophers writing some years ago and less to current work. That is true. However, as I mentioned above, that is one sign that there is currently a stalemate about how philosophically to proceed on the issue. I have not aimed at producing a book that is expected to become old fashioned, out of date, in a few years. My aim has been to write about the issues, about sentences, propositions, beliefs, being true or false, etc. As it had to be written at a certain time and place, no doubt many references will disclose that fact. But it is nonetheless about the topics discussed and it must be judged by the arguments and analyses concerning those matters and not the incidental references to particular people who have expressed views on those matters. I would like to thank especially Stephen Simon and William Hyde for their continuing interest in and criticism (often exasperated) of what I have to say here. I OPENING THE CASE FOR A NON-LINGUISTIC TRUTH-BEARER 1. Sorting Out the Issues The ultimate aim of an inquiry into the nature of truth must be that of making sense of the human practice of calling things true (or false). It has turned out, however, in consequence of philosophical attempts on that issue, that what looks to be a simple preliminary is more difficult than anticipated. That preliminary topic concerns what it is that is (in modern terminology) the bearer of truth-value. The question of what sort of thing is true or is false is not only troublesome but pregnant with implications and connections to a variety of other philosophical issues. Thus, an inquiry into truth-bearing is valuable in itself, though it is still preparatory to an investigation of the nature of truth.1 We may be tempted to put the question about truth-bearers as: what is it that is true or false? (The “or” is important since nothing can be both true and false-except, e.g., that William can be both a true Irishman and a false lover.) But that version, taken literally, would be satisfied by producing a long list of truths and falsehoods. What is philosophically wanted is not a list, but a characterization of the kind of thing that can be spoken of as true or false, the sort of thing that is subject to being true or being false. Still, that is not good enough as a guide to what we are philosophically after. For, as in the parenthetical remark above, “Irishman” and “lover” qualify as kinds of thing that are true or false. And yet it is not those kinds of thing, and other similar ones, which are relevant to the philosophical problem at hand.2 The cases of truth-bearing about which philosophical troubles arise are not those of, e.g. Irishmen or lovers, but those which start from someone's having said something, for example “He has no sense of humor”, to which a second person responds “That's true” or “That's not true” or “That's false”- or employs any of the many idiomatic variants of those expressions.3 4 I Such situations constitute the paradigm cases of truth talk, the basic phenomenon for an inquiry into what sort of thing truth-bearers are. Because such cases are the home ground for our talk of truth and falsity, we can say that what is displayed there is the primary use of the predicates “is true” and “is false”.4 To remind ourselves that the central occurrence of truth talk is in response to a claim that this is how things are, consider the alternatives. Philosophers often write as if the form “p is true/false” is the fundamental truth locution. Although that idea is an important source of redundancy theories of truth–if anyone actually were to say “Cows give milk is true”, that strange way of talking could only be understood to mean “Cows give milk”-that form of words probably never occurs outside of philosophical writing. Its occurrence there is most likely an unfortunate conflation of the conversational situation in which someone says something and a respondent comments on whether what was said is true or not: i.e. she says “Cows give milk”, someone says of that (of what she said) “That’s true”. Conflating the two remarks produces the misshapen “Cows give milk is true”. Just because “That” refers to what she said, namely “Cows give milk”, does not entitle one to conflate the words appropriate to two quite different acts, that of saying something and that of commenting on what was said.5 Of course “is true” is a predicate and perfectly appropriate in some linguistic contexts: “That’s true” is one such case, the widely recognized case of “Everything he said is true’” is yet another. But in (say) “Cows give milk is true” the “is true” is neither redundant nor eliminable: it simply has no place there, just as the square root sign does not. (I shall later reject on other grounds the disquotational variant “’p’ is true” where the “p” is to represent a sentence rather than what someone says.) It should also be noted that “true” can, with some nouns, occur attributively: “true belief” seems the most common case.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Truth-Bearers and Truth Value*
    Truth-Bearers and Truth Value* I. Introduction The purpose of this document is to explain the following concepts and the relationships between them: statements, propositions, and truth value. In what follows each of these will be discussed in turn. II. Language and Truth-Bearers A. Statements 1. Introduction For present purposes, we will define the term “statement” as follows. Statement: A meaningful declarative sentence.1 It is useful to make sure that the definition of “statement” is clearly understood. 2. Sentences in General To begin with, a statement is a kind of sentence. Obviously, not every string of words is a sentence. Consider: “John store.” Here we have two nouns with a period after them—there is no verb. Grammatically, this is not a sentence—it is just a collection of words with a dot after them. Consider: “If I went to the store.” This isn’t a sentence either. “I went to the store.” is a sentence. However, using the word “if” transforms this string of words into a mere clause that requires another clause to complete it. For example, the following is a sentence: “If I went to the store, I would buy milk.” This issue is not merely one of conforming to arbitrary rules. Remember, a grammatically correct sentence expresses a complete thought.2 The construction “If I went to the store.” does not do this. One wants to By Dr. Robert Tierney. This document is being used by Dr. Tierney for teaching purposes and is not intended for use or publication in any other manner. 1 More precisely, a statement is a meaningful declarative sentence-type.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetorical Analysis
    RHETORICAL ANALYSIS PURPOSE Almost every text makes an argument. Rhetorical analysis is the process of evaluating elements of a text and determining how those elements impact the success or failure of that argument. Often rhetorical analyses address written arguments, but visual, oral, or other kinds of “texts” can also be analyzed. RHETORICAL FEATURES – WHAT TO ANALYZE Asking the right questions about how a text is constructed will help you determine the focus of your rhetorical analysis. A good rhetorical analysis does not try to address every element of a text; discuss just those aspects with the greatest [positive or negative] impact on the text’s effectiveness. THE RHETORICAL SITUATION Remember that no text exists in a vacuum. The rhetorical situation of a text refers to the context in which it is written and read, the audience to whom it is directed, and the purpose of the writer. THE RHETORICAL APPEALS A writer makes many strategic decisions when attempting to persuade an audience. Considering the following rhetorical appeals will help you understand some of these strategies and their effect on an argument. Generally, writers should incorporate a variety of different rhetorical appeals rather than relying on only one kind. Ethos (appeal to the writer’s credibility) What is the writer’s purpose (to argue, explain, teach, defend, call to action, etc.)? Do you trust the writer? Why? Is the writer an authority on the subject? What credentials does the writer have? Does the writer address other viewpoints? How does the writer’s word choice or tone affect how you view the writer? Pathos (a ppeal to emotion or to an audience’s values or beliefs) Who is the target audience for the argument? How is the writer trying to make the audience feel (i.e., sad, happy, angry, guilty)? Is the writer making any assumptions about the background, knowledge, values, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Etienne Gilson Series 21
    The Etienne Gilson Series 21 Remapping Scholasticism by MARCIA L. COLISH 3 March 2000 Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies This lecture and its publication was made possible through the generous bequest of the late Charles J. Sullivan (1914-1999) Note: the author may be contacted at: Department of History Oberlin College Oberlin OH USA 44074 ISSN 0-708-319X ISBN 0-88844-721-3 © 2000 by Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 59 Queen’s Park Crescent East Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C4 Printed in Canada nce upon a time there were two competing story-lines for medieval intellectual history, each writing a major role for scholasticism into its script. Although these story-lines were O created independently and reflected different concerns, they sometimes overlapped and gave each other aid and comfort. Both exerted considerable influence on the way historians of medieval speculative thought conceptualized their subject in the first half of the twentieth cen- tury. Both versions of the map drawn by these two sets of cartographers illustrated what Wallace K. Ferguson later described as “the revolt of the medievalists.”1 One was confined largely to the academy and appealed to a wide variety of medievalists, while the other had a somewhat narrower draw and reflected political and confessional, as well as academic, concerns. The first was the anti-Burckhardtian effort to push Renaissance humanism, understood as combining a knowledge and love of the classics with “the discovery of the world and of man,” back into the Middle Ages. The second was inspired by the neo-Thomist revival launched by Pope Leo XIII, and was inhabited almost exclusively by Roman Catholic scholars.
    [Show full text]
  • Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Papers, 1646-1716
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt2779p48t No online items Finding Aid for the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Papers, 1646-1716 Processed by David MacGill; machine-readable finding aid created by Caroline Cubé © 2003 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Finding Aid for the Gottfried 503 1 Wilhelm Leibniz Papers, 1646-1716 Finding Aid for the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Papers, 1646-1716 Collection number: 503 UCLA Library, Department of Special Collections Manuscripts Division Los Angeles, CA Processed by: David MacGill, November 1992 Encoded by: Caroline Cubé Online finding aid edited by: Josh Fiala, October 2003 © 2003 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Papers, Date (inclusive): 1646-1716 Collection number: 503 Creator: Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, Freiherr von, 1646-1716 Extent: 6 oversize boxes Repository: University of California, Los Angeles. Library. Dept. of Special Collections. Los Angeles, California 90095-1575 Abstract: Leibniz (1646-1716) was a philosopher, mathematician, and political advisor. He invented differential and integral calculus. His major writings include New physical hypothesis (1671), Discourse on metaphysics (1686), On the ultimate origin of things (1697), and On nature itself (1698). The collection consists of 35 reels of positive microfilm of more than 100,000 handwritten pages of manuscripts and letters. Physical location: Stored off-site at SRLF. Advance notice is required for access to the collection. Please contact the UCLA Library, Department of Special Collections Reference Desk for paging information. Language: English. Restrictions on Use and Reproduction Property rights to the physical object belong to the UCLA Library, Department of Special Collections.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic, Sets, and Proofs David A
    Logic, Sets, and Proofs David A. Cox and Catherine C. McGeoch Amherst College 1 Logic Logical Statements. A logical statement is a mathematical statement that is either true or false. Here we denote logical statements with capital letters A; B. Logical statements be combined to form new logical statements as follows: Name Notation Conjunction A and B Disjunction A or B Negation not A :A Implication A implies B if A, then B A ) B Equivalence A if and only if B A , B Here are some examples of conjunction, disjunction and negation: x > 1 and x < 3: This is true when x is in the open interval (1; 3). x > 1 or x < 3: This is true for all real numbers x. :(x > 1): This is the same as x ≤ 1. Here are two logical statements that are true: x > 4 ) x > 2. x2 = 1 , (x = 1 or x = −1). Note that \x = 1 or x = −1" is usually written x = ±1. Converses, Contrapositives, and Tautologies. We begin with converses and contrapositives: • The converse of \A implies B" is \B implies A". • The contrapositive of \A implies B" is \:B implies :A" Thus the statement \x > 4 ) x > 2" has: • Converse: x > 2 ) x > 4. • Contrapositive: x ≤ 2 ) x ≤ 4. 1 Some logical statements are guaranteed to always be true. These are tautologies. Here are two tautologies that involve converses and contrapositives: • (A if and only if B) , ((A implies B) and (B implies A)). In other words, A and B are equivalent exactly when both A ) B and its converse are true.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 – Describing Syntax and Semantics CS-4337 Organization of Programming Languages
    !" # Chapter 3 – Describing Syntax and Semantics CS-4337 Organization of Programming Languages Dr. Chris Irwin Davis Email: [email protected] Phone: (972) 883-3574 Office: ECSS 4.705 Chapter 3 Topics • Introduction • The General Problem of Describing Syntax • Formal Methods of Describing Syntax • Attribute Grammars • Describing the Meanings of Programs: Dynamic Semantics 1-2 Introduction •Syntax: the form or structure of the expressions, statements, and program units •Semantics: the meaning of the expressions, statements, and program units •Syntax and semantics provide a language’s definition – Users of a language definition •Other language designers •Implementers •Programmers (the users of the language) 1-3 The General Problem of Describing Syntax: Terminology •A sentence is a string of characters over some alphabet •A language is a set of sentences •A lexeme is the lowest level syntactic unit of a language (e.g., *, sum, begin) •A token is a category of lexemes (e.g., identifier) 1-4 Example: Lexemes and Tokens index = 2 * count + 17 Lexemes Tokens index identifier = equal_sign 2 int_literal * mult_op count identifier + plus_op 17 int_literal ; semicolon Formal Definition of Languages • Recognizers – A recognition device reads input strings over the alphabet of the language and decides whether the input strings belong to the language – Example: syntax analysis part of a compiler - Detailed discussion of syntax analysis appears in Chapter 4 • Generators – A device that generates sentences of a language – One can determine if the syntax of a particular sentence is syntactically correct by comparing it to the structure of the generator 1-5 Formal Methods of Describing Syntax •Formal language-generation mechanisms, usually called grammars, are commonly used to describe the syntax of programming languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Frege and the Logic of Sense and Reference
    FREGE AND THE LOGIC OF SENSE AND REFERENCE Kevin C. Klement Routledge New York & London Published in 2002 by Routledge 29 West 35th Street New York, NY 10001 Published in Great Britain by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper. Copyright © 2002 by Kevin C. Klement All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any infomration storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Klement, Kevin C., 1974– Frege and the logic of sense and reference / by Kevin Klement. p. cm — (Studies in philosophy) Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 0-415-93790-6 1. Frege, Gottlob, 1848–1925. 2. Sense (Philosophy) 3. Reference (Philosophy) I. Title II. Studies in philosophy (New York, N. Y.) B3245.F24 K54 2001 12'.68'092—dc21 2001048169 Contents Page Preface ix Abbreviations xiii 1. The Need for a Logical Calculus for the Theory of Sinn and Bedeutung 3 Introduction 3 Frege’s Project: Logicism and the Notion of Begriffsschrift 4 The Theory of Sinn and Bedeutung 8 The Limitations of the Begriffsschrift 14 Filling the Gap 21 2. The Logic of the Grundgesetze 25 Logical Language and the Content of Logic 25 Functionality and Predication 28 Quantifiers and Gothic Letters 32 Roman Letters: An Alternative Notation for Generality 38 Value-Ranges and Extensions of Concepts 42 The Syntactic Rules of the Begriffsschrift 44 The Axiomatization of Frege’s System 49 Responses to the Paradox 56 v vi Contents 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Presupposition Failure and Intended Pronominal Reference: Person Is Not So Different from Gender After All* Isabelle Charnavel Harvard University
    Presupposition failure and intended pronominal reference: Person is not so different from gender after all* Isabelle Charnavel Harvard University Abstract This paper aims to show that (one of) the main argument(s) against the presuppositional account of person is not compelling if one makes appropriate assumptions about how the context fixes the assignment. It has been argued that unlike gender features, person features of free pronouns cannot yield presupposition failure (but only falsity) when they are not verified by the referent. The argument is however flawed because the way the referent is assigned is not made clear. If it is assumed to be the individual that the audience can recognize as the referent intended by the speaker, the argument is reversed. Keywords Person, gender, presupposition, assignment, reference, indexicals 1 Introduction Since Cooper (1983), gender features on pronouns are standardly analyzed as presuppositions (Heim and Kratzer 1998, Sauerland 2003, Heim 2008, Percus 2011, i.a.). Cooper’s analysis of gender features has not only been extended to number, but also to person features (Heim and Kratzer 1998, Schlenker 1999, 2003, Sauerland 2008, Heim 2008, i.a.), thus replacing the more traditional indexical analysis of first and second person pronouns (Kaplan 1977 and descendants of it). All pronouns are thereby interpreted as variables, and all phi-features are assigned uniform interpretive functions, that is, they introduce presuppositions that restrict of the value of the variables. However, empirical arguments have recently been provided that cast doubt on the presuppositional nature of person features (Stokke 2010, Sudo 2012, i.a.). In particular, it has been claimed that when the person information is not verified by the referent, the use of a first/second person pronoun does not give rise to a feeling of presupposition failure, as is the case when the gender information does not match the referent’s gender: a person mismatch, unlike a gender mismatch, yields a plain judgment of falsity.
    [Show full text]
  • Bearers of Truth and the Unsaid
    1 Bearers of Truth and the Unsaid Stephen Barker (University of Nottingham) Draft (Forthcoming in Making Semantics Pragmatic (ed) K. Turner. (CUP). The standard view about the bearers of truth–the entities that are the ultimate objects of predication of truth or falsity–is that they are propositions or sentences semantically correlated with propositions. Propositions are meant to be the contents of assertions, objects of thought or judgement, and so are ontologically distinct from assertions or acts of thought or judgement. So understood propositions are meant to be things like possible states of affairs or sets of possible worlds–entities that are clearly not acts of judgement. Let us say that a sentence S encodes a proposition «P» when linguistic rules (plus context) correlate «P» with S in a manner that does not depend upon whether S is asserted or appears embedded in a logical compound. The orthodox conception of truth-bearers then can be expressed in two forms: TB1 : The primary truth-bearers are propositions. TB2 : The primary truth-bearers are sentences that encode a proposition «P». I use the term primary truth-bearers , since orthodoxy allows that assertions or judgements, etc, can be truth-bearers, it is just that they are derivatively so; they being truth-apt depends on other things being truth-apt. Some orthodox theorists prefer TB1 –Stalnaker (1972)– some prefer TB2 –Richard (1990). We need not concern ourselves with the reasons for their preferences here. Rather, our concern shall be this: why accept orthodoxy at all in either form: TB1 or TB2 ? There is without doubt a strong general reason to accept the propositional view.
    [Show full text]
  • Topics in Philosophical Logic
    Topics in Philosophical Logic The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Litland, Jon. 2012. Topics in Philosophical Logic. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:9527318 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA © Jon Litland All rights reserved. Warren Goldfarb Jon Litland Topics in Philosophical Logic Abstract In “Proof-Theoretic Justification of Logic”, building on work by Dummett and Prawitz, I show how to construct use-based meaning-theories for the logical constants. The assertability-conditional meaning-theory takes the meaning of the logical constants to be given by their introduction rules; the consequence-conditional meaning-theory takes the meaning of the log- ical constants to be given by their elimination rules. I then consider the question: given a set of introduction (elimination) rules , what are the R strongest elimination (introduction) rules that are validated by an assertabil- ity (consequence) conditional meaning-theory based on ? I prove that the R intuitionistic introduction (elimination) rules are the strongest rules that are validated by the intuitionistic elimination (introduction) rules. I then prove that intuitionistic logic is the strongest logic that can be given either an assertability-conditional or consequence-conditional meaning-theory. In “Grounding Grounding” I discuss the notion of grounding. My discus- sion revolves around the problem of iterated grounding-claims.
    [Show full text]
  • Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716)
    Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) • His father, a professor of Philosophy, died when he was small, and he was brought up by his mother. • He learnt Latin at school in Leipzig, but taught himself much more and also taught himself some Greek, possibly because he wanted to read his father’s books. • He studied law and logic at Leipzig University from the age of fourteen – which was not exceptionally young for that time. • His Ph D thesis “De Arte Combinatoria” was completed in 1666 at the University of Altdorf. He was offered a chair there but turned it down. • He then met, and worked for, Baron von Boineburg (at one stage prime minister in the government of Mainz), as a secretary, librarian and lawyer – and was also a personal friend. • Over the years he earned his living mainly as a lawyer and diplomat, working at different times for the states of Mainz, Hanover and Brandenburg. • But he is famous as a mathematician and philosopher. • By his own account, his interest in mathematics developed quite late. • An early interest was mechanics. – He was interested in the works of Huygens and Wren on collisions. – He published Hypothesis Physica Nova in 1671. The hypothesis was that motion depends on the action of a spirit ( a hypothesis shared by Kepler– but not Newton). – At this stage he was already communicating with scientists in London and in Paris. (Over his life he had around 600 scientific correspondents, all over the world.) – He met Huygens in Paris in 1672, while on a political mission, and started working with him.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Language in the Twentieth Century Jason Stanley Rutgers University
    Philosophy of Language in the Twentieth Century Jason Stanley Rutgers University In the Twentieth Century, Logic and Philosophy of Language are two of the few areas of philosophy in which philosophers made indisputable progress. For example, even now many of the foremost living ethicists present their theories as somewhat more explicit versions of the ideas of Kant, Mill, or Aristotle. In contrast, it would be patently absurd for a contemporary philosopher of language or logician to think of herself as working in the shadow of any figure who died before the Twentieth Century began. Advances in these disciplines make even the most unaccomplished of its practitioners vastly more sophisticated than Kant. There were previous periods in which the problems of language and logic were studied extensively (e.g. the medieval period). But from the perspective of the progress made in the last 120 years, previous work is at most a source of interesting data or occasional insight. All systematic theorizing about content that meets contemporary standards of rigor has been done subsequently. The advances Philosophy of Language has made in the Twentieth Century are of course the result of the remarkable progress made in logic. Few other philosophical disciplines gained as much from the developments in logic as the Philosophy of Language. In the course of presenting the first formal system in the Begriffsscrift , Gottlob Frege developed a formal language. Subsequently, logicians provided rigorous semantics for formal languages, in order to define truth in a model, and thereby characterize logical consequence. Such rigor was required in order to enable logicians to carry out semantic proofs about formal systems in a formal system, thereby providing semantics with the same benefits as increased formalization had provided for other branches of mathematics.
    [Show full text]