DOCSLIB.ORG

Language, Necessity and Convention

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Language, Necessity and Convention Reconsidering the Linguistic Approach to Modality Fredrik Nyseth This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Wolfson College, University of Cambridge September 2017 Language, Necessity and Convention Reconsidering the Linguistic Approach to Modality Fredrik Nyseth Abstract This thesis is an examination of the linguistic approach to modality (also known as ‘linguistic conventionalism’) – i.e. the view that necessity is to be explained in terms of the linguistic rules that we have adopted. Drawing on an investigation into the history of this approach, I argue against the currently prevalent attitude that it can be dismissed as misguided. The aim, however, is not to argue that the linguistic approach is correct, but, more modestly, to put it back on the table as an interesting and viable research program. The thesis is divided into three parts. In part A, I articulate a conception of the commitments of the approach based on the ideas that influenced it, how it emerged and developed in the work of the logical positivists, and, in particular, the role it was meant to play in “making a consistent empiricism possible”. Next, in part B, I defend the core ideas of the approach against various objections. Notably, I consider the objection that truth cannot be “created” by convention, the objection that necessities cannot be explained in terms of contingencies, and the ob- jection that determining what the linguistic conventions are, unlike determining what the modal facts are, is a straightforwardly empirical matter. In part C, finally, I turn to objections which purport to show that there are limits to what can be explained in terms of linguistic convention. Specifically, I consider whether we need to assume a non-conventional distinction between admissible and inadmissi- ble linguistic rules, a non-conventional consequence relation, or a non-conventional starting-point in order to get the linguistic approach off the ground. An overarching question is whether we are forced to take some logic for granted in a way which would undermine the explanatory ambitions of the approach. I argue that some of the prominent objections rely on misunderstandings, that some can be answered head-on, and that some point to genuine challenges and constraints which put pressure on the linguistic approach, but do not warrant a wholesale rejection of the view. Instead, they point to areas where further work is needed. Preface Declaration: This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as de- clared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is be- ing concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qual- ification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the relevant Degree Committee. Acknowledgements: Throughout the work on this thesis, my supervisor, Tim Button, has been a constant source of encouragement, invaluable advice and insightful comments. It is abundantly clear to me that both the thesis and I have improved greatly as a result of his help, and I will always remain grateful for this. I also want to thank my shadow supervisor, Michael Potter, whose prob- ing criticisms, perceptive comments and wealth of knowledge has served as both an antidote to complacency and a source of inspiration. In addition, I have benefited from a great many seminars and lectures at the University of Cambridge, and from conversations and exchanges with a number of people. For suggestions and comments concerning various topics related to the thesis, I would like to thank: Arif Ahmed, Simon Blackburn, Fiona Doherty, Hugh Mellor and Mat Simpson. For advice on translating German and French: Trym Nohr Fjørtoft and Chlo´ede Canson. And for all things practical: the graduate secretary at the Faculty of Philosophy, Zoe Walker-Fagg. I owe a special thanks to Luke Cash who has read and com- mented on substantial parts of the thesis, and who has been a particularly important colleague and friend over several years. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank those who have played important roles at earlier stages in my academic career: Tim Crane, Luca Incurvati and, again, Michael Potter who all supervised me during my time as an MPhil student in Cambridge; and Jan Harald Alnes, Kjersti Fjørtoft, Beatrix Himmelmann, Johan Arnt Myrstad and Petter Nafstad, who were especially supportive during my time as an undergraduate at the University of Tromsø. Finally, I want to thank my family – and in particular my parents, Ann- Helen and Asgeir, for their unending support. And Marit, whose affection, support and patience has been invaluable over the course of these past four years. Contents Introduction 1 A Articulating the Linguistic Approach 7 1 The Commitments of the Linguistic Approach 9 1.1 Paradigmatic Characterisations . 10 1.2 A Quinean Concern . 13 1.3 The Threat of Triviality . 17 1.4 The Threat of Obscurity . 19 1.5 A Different Perspective on Explanation . 21 1.6 Characterising the Commitments . 23 2 The Roots of the Linguistic Approach 27 2.1 Kant’s Subjective-Constitutive Strategy . 28 2.2 Poincar´e’sGeometric Conventionalism . 38 2.3 Wittgenstein’s Linguistic Turn . 45 3 The Linguistic Approach and Logical Positivism 59 3.1 Schlick on the A Priori ..................... 60 3.2 Hans Hahn and Consistent Empiricism . 67 3.3 Carnap and the Linguistic Approach . 73 3.4 More on the Commitments of the Linguistic Approach . 85 B Defending the Essentials 89 4 Language, Truth and Necessity 93 4.1 Versions of the Truth-Contrast Thesis . 94 4.2 Standard Objections . 97 4.3 In Favour of Ordinary Truth . 104 4.4 From Truth to Necessity . 110 4.5 In Defence of the Logical Positivists . 114 5 The Contingency Problem 117 5.1 Blackburn’s Dilemma . 118 5.2 The Wright-Sidelle Strategy and Its Limits . 121 5.3 Doubts about Hale’s Formalisation . 123 5.4 Making Sense of Covariance . 125 5.5 External Covariance and Genuine Necessity . 130 5.6 A Glaring Disanalogy . 133 6 The Character of Linguistic Rules 137 6.1 Rejecting the Myth of a Museum . 138 6.2 The Threat of Indeterminacy . 140 6.3 The Retreat to Idiolects . 147 6.4 External and Internal Standards of Correctness . 151 6.5 Avoiding Idiolects . 154 C Exploring the Limits of Convention 161 7 Inadmissible Conventions? 165 7.1 The Problem of Disharmonious Rules . 166 7.2 The Peacocke-Boghossian Response . 167 7.3 Disharmony as a Pragmatic Problem . 170 7.4 Excessively Weak Elimination Rules . 175 7.5 Explaining the Correspondence . 177 8 Conventions and Consequences 183 8.1 The Quine-Carroll Regress . 184 8.2 Explaining Consequences . 195 8.3 The Rule-Following Considerations . 202 9 First Principles 215 9.1 The Problem . 216 9.2 Rule-Circular Explanations . 218 9.3 Implicit Definition . 222 9.4 Assertibility in All Cases . 224 9.5 Case Study I: Conjunction Elimination . 227 9.6 Case Study II: The Law of Non-Contradiction . 230 Conclusion 239 Bibliography 243 Introduction ‘The philosophical problem of necessity’, Dummett tells us in a much-quoted passage, ‘is twofold: what is its source and how do we recognize it?’ (1959: 327) A once popular response to this problem – which, of course, was a problem long before Dummett’s formulation of it – goes roughly as follows: The source of necessity lies in language and specifically in the conventionally adopted rules that govern the use of linguistic expressions. We are able to recognise necessity insofar as we know what these rules are and can reflect upon them. This rough idea has been given various names, including ‘linguistic conven- tionalism’ and ‘the linguistic doctrine of necessary truth’. I shall call it ‘the linguistic approach to modality’, or just ‘the linguistic approach’. Although this view is not without contemporary defenders,1 it is now rather unfashionable. Two important developments are often said to be responsible for this: the attack on the analytic-synthetic distinction2 and 1Alan Sidelle (1989; 2009), Jody Azzouni (1990; 2014), Amie Thomasson (2007a; 2007b: ch. 3; 2009; 2013), and Jared Warren (2015a; 2015b; 2017) have all provided recent defences of the idea. In addition, Hans-Johann Glock has defended a broadly speaking Wittgensteinian approach (2003a; 2003b: ch. 3; 2008), and Richard Creath has defended Carnap’s views against some of Quine’s objections (1987; 1990a; 2003). 2The classic attack is of course due to Quine (1951), but White, Goodman and Tarski all voiced similar concerns at the time (cf. e.g. White 1950; Goodman, Quine, and White 1947; Tarski 1944; and Frost-Arnold 2013: 94–101). Introduction Kripke’s discovery of necessary a posteriori truths.3 The full story, how- ever, is bound to be more complicated, and has to do with related but broader changes in the philosophical climate, such as the demise of logical positivism, the weakening of Wittgenstein’s influence, the backlash against “ordinary language philosophy”, and the revitalisation of “robust meta- physics”. However, while the linguistic approach is currently unpopular, it is not neglected. Instead, it remains a quite popular target. It remains a target, it seems, not so much because there are occasional defenders, but because it is regarded as superficially – perhaps very superficially – appealing, and because it is perceived to have a certain grip on philosophers even if they do not explicitly endorse it – perhaps even explicitly reject it.
Recommended publications
  • Meaning and Necessity Author(S): Gilbert Ryle Reviewed Work(S): Source: Philosophy, Vol

    Meaning and Necessity Author(S): Gilbert Ryle Reviewed Work(S): Source: Philosophy, Vol

    Royal Institute of Philosophy Meaning and Necessity Author(s): Gilbert Ryle Reviewed work(s): Source: Philosophy, Vol. 24, No. 88 (Jan., 1949), pp. 69-76 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Institute of Philosophy Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3747236 . Accessed: 18/10/2012 00:35 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Cambridge University Press and Royal Institute of Philosophy are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy. http://www.jstor.org DISCUSSION MEANING AND NECESSITY' PROFESSORCARNAP in his new book proffersa method for analysing and describingthe meaningsof expressionsand, more briefly,discusses the theory of logical modalities,the concepts,that is, of logical necessityand possibility. His meaning-analysisis in the main intendedas an improvementupon certain doctrinesand practices of Frege. His account of the modal concepts of logic is in the main intended as an improvementupon certain doctrinesof C. I. Lewis. Views of Quine, Russell, Tarski, Churchand othersare also discussed. Students of Carap's other writingswill notice with interestthat he has now swung still furtherfrom the extreme nominalismof his earlier years. Inverted commas are no longer his panacea, and he now makes alarming requisitionsupon philosophy'sstock of extra-linguisticentities.
  • Hegel's Critique of Contingency in Kant's Principle of Teleology Kimberly Zwez Kzwez001@Fiu.Edu

    Hegel's Critique of Contingency in Kant's Principle of Teleology Kimberly Zwez [email protected]

    Florida International University FIU Digital Commons FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations University Graduate School 3-26-2014 Hegel's Critique of Contingency in Kant's Principle of Teleology Kimberly Zwez [email protected] DOI: 10.25148/etd.FI14040885 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd Part of the Continental Philosophy Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Zwez, Kimberly, "Hegel's Critique of Contingency in Kant's Principle of Teleology" (2014). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1194. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/1194 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University Graduate School at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida HEGEL’S CRITIQUE OF CONTINGENCY IN KANT’S PRINCIPLE OF TELEOLOGY A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in RELIGIOUS STUDIES by Kimberly Zwez 2014 To: Dean Kenneth G. Furton College of Arts and Sciences This thesis, written by Kimberly Zwez, and entitled Hegel’s Critique of Contingency in Kant’s Principle of Teleology having been approved in respect to style and intellectual content is referred to you for judgment. We have read this thesis and recommend that it be approved ____________________________________________________ Christine Gudorf ____________________________________________________ Kenneth Rogerson ____________________________________________________ Whitney Bauman, Major Professor Date of Defense: March 26, 2014 This thesis of Kimberly Zwez is approved.
  • Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems

    Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems

    NIST Special Publication 800-34 Rev. 1 Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems Marianne Swanson Pauline Bowen Amy Wohl Phillips Dean Gallup David Lynes NIST Special Publication 800-34 Rev. 1 Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems Marianne Swanson Pauline Bowen Amy Wohl Phillips Dean Gallup David Lynes May 2010 U.S. Department of Commerce Gary Locke, Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Patrick D. Gallagher, Director Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. There are references in this publication to documents currently under development by NIST in accordance with responsibilities assigned to NIST under the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. The methodologies in this document may be used even before the completion of such companion documents. Thus, until such time as each document is completed, current requirements, guidelines, and procedures (where they exist) remain operative. For planning and transition purposes, federal agencies may wish to closely follow the development of these new documents by NIST. Individuals are also encouraged to review the public draft documents and offer their comments to NIST. All NIST documents mentioned in this publication, other than the ones noted above, are available at http://csrc.nist.gov/publications. National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-34 Natl.
  • Willard Van Orman Quine: the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction

    Willard Van Orman Quine: the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction

    Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction Willard Van Orman Quine was one of the most well-known American “analytic” philosophers of the twentieth century. He made significant contributions to many areas of philosophy, including philosophy of language, logic, epistemology, philosophy of science, and philosophy of mind/psychology (behaviorism). However, he is best known for his rejection of the analytic/synthetic distinction. Technically, this is the distinction between statements true in virtue of the meanings of their terms (like “a bachelor is an unmarried man”) and statements whose truth is a function not simply of the meanings of terms, but of the way the world is (such as, “That bachelor is wearing a grey suit”). Although a contentious thesis, analyticity has been a popular explanation, especially among empiricists, both for the necessity of necessary truths and for the a priori knowability of some truths. Thus, in some contexts “analytic truth,” “necessary truth,” and “a priori truth” have been used interchangeably, and the analytic/synthetic distinction has been treated as equivalent to the distinctions between necessary and contingent truths, and between a priori and a posteriori (or empirical) truths. Empirical truths can be known only by empirical verification, rather than by “unpacking” the meanings of the terms involved, and are usually thought to be contingent. Quine wrestled with the analytic/synthetic distinction for years, but he did not make his thoughts public until 1950, when he delivered his paper, “The Two Dogmas of Empiricism” at a meeting of the American Philosophical Association. In this paper, Quine argues that all attempts to define and understand analyticity are circular.
  • 1 ICPR Workshop on Rudolf Carnap's Meaning and Necessity: a Study in Semantics and Modal Logic March 17-23, 2018 to Be Held At

    1 ICPR Workshop on Rudolf Carnap's Meaning and Necessity: a Study in Semantics and Modal Logic March 17-23, 2018 to Be Held At

    ICPR Workshop on Rudolf Carnap’s Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic March 17-23, 2018 To be held at ICPR Academic Centre, Lucknow Rudolf Carnap (1891-1970) is generally regarded as one of the most significant representative of logical positivism. Born in Germany, he was educated at the universities of Freiburg and Jena. At the University of Jena, he had attended the classes of Frege. In his brief autobiography published in P. A. Schilpp’s edited volume The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap , he mentioned, among others, Reichenbach, Moritz Schlick, Frege, Bertrand Russell, Wittgenstein, Tarski, C.W. Morris, C. G. Hampel and Quine as prominent philosophers of his time with whom he had interactions. In his book Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic (1947), Carnap primarily discussed doctrines of Frege, C.I. Lewis, Quine, Russell, Tarski, and Church. The notion of “Logical Syntax” played a very significant role in his philosophy. About it, in The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap , he maintained, “I thought of the logical syntax of language in the strictly limited sense of dealing with the form of the expressions of the language, the form of an expression being characterized by the specification of the signs occurring in it and of the other in which the signs occur. No reference to the meaning of the signs and expressions is made in logical syntax. Since only the logical structure of the expressions is involved, the syntax language, i.e. the metalanguage serving for the formulation of logical syntax, contains only logical constants.” (p.65) Carnap held the view that philosophical problems are merely syntactical problems as they are construed in metalanguage.
  • Special Events Contingency Planning

    Special Events Contingency Planning

    Special Events Contingency Planning Job Aids Manual March 2005 FEMA IS-15: Special Events Contingency Planning Job Aids Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... 1 Introduction Preface ....................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................. 2 Scope ......................................................................................................... 3 Synopsis ..................................................................................................... 4 Chapter Overviews........................................................................................ 4 Chapter 1: Pre-Event Planning Introduction.............................................................................................. 1-1 Definition of Special Event and Mass Gathering .............................................. 1-1 Planning Meetings for Special Events/Mass Gatherings .................................... 1-2 The Planning Process.................................................................................. 1-3 State and Federal Roles in Terrorism Incident Prevention ................................ 1-4 Crowd Types ............................................................................................. 1-9 Crowd Composition .................................................................................
  • Ten PROBLEMS with AQUINAS' THIRD

    Ten PROBLEMS with AQUINAS' THIRD

    Ten PROBLEMS WITH AQUINAS' THIRD WAY Edward Moad 1. Introduction Of Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs of the existence of God, the Third Way is a cosmological argument of a specific type sometimes referred to as an argument from contingency. The Aristotelian argument for the existence of the First Unmoved Mover was based on the observation that there is change (or motion), coupled with the principle that nothing changes unless its specific potential to change is actualized by an actual change undergone by some other thing. It then arrives at the conclusion that there exists something in a constant state of pure activity, which is not itself moved but sets everything else in motion. The operative sense of contingency this argument turns on, then, is that of motion. That is, things have the potential to change in certain ways (depending on the kind of things they are), but may or may not do so; whether they actually do being contingent on whether they are acted on in the right way by something else. For this reason, Aristotle’s argument delivers a first mover, which brings about the motion in all that exists, but not a being that brings about the very existence of everything else. The argument referred to specifically as the argument from contingency, by contrast, turns on the idea of the contingency of the very existence of anything at all. That is, if something exists which may not have existed, and the fact that it does exist rather than not is contingent on the action of other existing things which are themselves contingent, then the existence of the whole lot of contingent things, taken together, is also contingent.
  • Aquinas' Third

    Aquinas' Third

    Aquinas’ Third Way A chain of causes cannot be infinite. Last time we had arrived at the following provisional interpretation of Aquinas’ second way: 1. At least one thing has an efficient cause. 2. Every causal chain must either be circular, or infinite, or it has a first cause. 3. If something were the efficient cause of itself, it would be prior to itself. 4. Nothing can be prior to itself. 5. Nothing is either the efficient cause of itself, or is causally responsible for itself. (3,4) 6. A chain of causes cannot be infinite. __________________________________ C. There is a first cause. (1,2,5,6) Our main topic today will be a discussion of Aquinas’ third way. But before moving on to that argument, let’s talk briefly about a way in which the above reconstruction of the second way might be improved, and about a further criticism of the second way. Last time there was some confusion about the roles of premises 2, 5, and 6 in the argument. One way in which the roles of these premises might be made more clear is by splitting premise 2 up into the following three sub-premises: Every causal chain must either be circular or non-circular. Every causal chain must either be finite or infinite. Every non-infinite, non-circular causal chain must include a first cause. We’re making progress. We’ve got a valid argument, and we have seen that there’s good reason to believe that premises 1, 2, 3, and 4 are true. So the only independent premise - that is, the only premise which does not follow from other premises - which remains to discuss is premise 6.
  • Frege and the Logic of Sense and Reference

    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.
  • The Philosophical Development of Gilbert Ryle

    The Philosophical Development of Gilbert Ryle

    THE PHILOSOPHICAL DEVELOPMENT OF GILBERT RYLE A Study of His Published and Unpublished Writings © Charlotte Vrijen 2007 Illustrations front cover: 1) Ryle’s annotations to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus 2) Notes (miscellaneous) from ‘the red box’, Linacre College Library Illustration back cover: Rodin’s Le Penseur RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN The Philosophical Development of Gilbert Ryle A Study of His Published and Unpublished Writings Proefschrift ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de Wijsbegeerte aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, dr. F. Zwarts, in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 14 juni 2007 om 16.15 uur door Charlotte Vrijen geboren op 11 maart 1978 te Rolde Promotor: Prof. Dr. L.W. Nauta Copromotor: Prof. Dr. M.R.M. ter Hark Beoordelingscommissie: Prof. Dr. D.H.K. Pätzold Prof. Dr. B.F. McGuinness Prof. Dr. J.M. Connelly ISBN: 978-90-367-3049-5 Preface I am indebted to many people for being able to finish this dissertation. First of all I would like to thank my supervisor and promotor Lodi Nauta for his comments on an enormous variety of drafts and for the many stimulating discussions we had throughout the project. He did not limit himself to deeply theoretical discussions but also saved me from grammatical and stylish sloppiness. (He would, for example, have suggested to leave out the ‘enormous’ and ‘many’ above, as well as by far most of the ‘very’’s and ‘greatly’’s in the sentences to come.) After I had already started my new job outside the academic world, Lodi regularly – but always in a pleasant way – reminded me of this other job that still had to be finished.
  • Philosophy of Language in the Twentieth Century Jason Stanley Rutgers University

    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.
  • Kant on the Cosmological Argument

    Kant on the Cosmological Argument

    Philosophers’ volume 14, no. 12 Introduction may 2014 Imprint In the section of the first Critique entitled “The Ideal of Pure Reason,” Kant constructs an elaborately layered critique of the so-called “cos- mological proof” of the existence of God.1 He portrays the cosmologi- cal argument (as I shall more neutrally term it) as having three main phases.2 First, one observes that there is at least one existent being, and argues that it exists contingently (28: 1006). Second, appealing to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, one argues for the existence of Kant on the an absolutely necessary being as the ultimate cause (A 605/B 633n*) or ground (28: 1006) of this contingently existing being. Third, one argues that this absolutely necessary being is a most real being — or ens realissimum (A 605–6/B 633–34). In “The Ideal,” Kant presents Cosmological Argument this third step as drawing the argument to a close (A 606/B 634). But, judging by his discussion in the Religion Lectures, he sometimes con- ceives of the argument as intended to be completed by a sort of coda in which one argues that the absolutely necessary being, since it is an ens realissimum, must possess each of the traditional “divine attributes.”3 Kant raises three main objections to this version of the cosmologi- cal argument. First, it “presupposes” the correctness of the ontological argument in the sense, apparently, of tacitly incorporating the onto- logical argument as a proper part (A 607/B 635; A 608–9/B 636–7). Second, it commits an ignoratio elenchi, a fallacy of arguing for some- thing other than what was at issue (A 609/B 637).