City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2-2015 What the Tortoise Said to Kripke: the Adoption Problem and the Epistemology of Logic Romina Padro Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/603 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] WHAT THE TORTOISE SAID TO KRIPKE: THE ADOPTION PROBLEM AND THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF LOGIC by ROMINA PADRO A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2015 © 2015 ROMINA PADRO All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Gary Ostertag October 7th, 2014 _________________________________ Date Chair of Examining Committee Rosemarie Iannuzzi October 7th, 2014 _________________________________ Date Executive Officer Michael Devitt, Advisor Arnold Koslow Michael Levin Paul Boghossian Supervisory Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii Abstract WHAT THE TORTOISE SAID TO KRIPKE: THE ADOPTION PROBLEM AND THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF LOGIC by ROMINA PADRO Advisor: Michael Devitt In chapter 1 I introduce the main topics to be addressed and provide a summary of the dissertation. In chapter 2 I summarize Lewis Carroll’s famous note “What the Tortoise Said to Achilles” and briefly review some of its most influential interpretations. The rest of the chapter is devoted to Kripke’s unpublished interpretation of Carroll’s note and the moral he draws from it: in section 2.2 I present and discuss what I call the “adoption problem” and in section 2.3 I clarify certain aspects of it. In chapter 3 I consider a modification of the original set up of the adoption problem in terms of rules of inference and argue that they cannot help us overcome it. I also compare Kripke’s interpretation of Carroll with his famous interpretation of Wittgenstein in Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language and discuss some points of connection between Wittgenstein’s and Kripke’s views on the relation between inferential acts and logical principles or rules. The following three chapters are meant to discuss, in view of the adoption problem, versions of what have perhaps been the most influential proposals for the justification of basic logical principles: empiricism a la Quine, rational intuition, and concept-constitution. In chapter 4 I examine Kripke’s use of the adoption problem to criticize Quine’s views in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” Since Kripke argues that Quine fails to see that the same objections he directs against Carnap in “Truth by Convention” can be applied to his own point of view in “Two iv Dogmas,” I start with a brief review of Carnap’s proposal and Quine’s famous objection to it. I continue with Quine’s “Two Dogmas” views, examine Kripke’s criticisms, and claim that Quine’s argument against Carnap should not be identified with Kripke’s argument against Quine. I also distinguish what I call the “standard objection” to Quine’s views from the objection based on the adoption problem and critically consider an attempt to overcome the latter by introducing some modifications to the Quinean system. In the final section I discuss Kripke’s Carroll-inspired metaphysical argument against the Cartesian doctrine on the creation of eternal truths and propose a related epistemological version of the argument. In chapter 5 I introduce Kripke’s intuition-based proposal for accounting for basic logical beliefs and inferences outlined in his talks and seminars and argue that it should be rejected because it overlooks his own adoption problem. I also note some possible variations of the proposal and claim that they do not fare better. In chapter 6 I focus on Boghossian’s concept-constituting account. I discuss in detail his proposal for dealing with the justification of basic logical beliefs and some of the criticisms it has received. I argue that the main problem of this proposal is that it fails to accommodate the lessons that can be drawn from the adoption problem concerning the nature of inferring. In chapter 7 I reconsider the significance of the adoption problem and focus on Ryle’s famous distinction between knowing how and knowing that. In section 7.2 I argue that “intellectualism,” the claim that knowledge how can be defined in terms of propositional knowledge (knowledge that), is not an option when it comes to basic deductive inferences and that some sort of knowing how is needed for an account of both propositional knowledge of basic logical principles and inferential uses (Kripke’s interpretation of Carroll will play a key role in my argument). I then discuss two different ways of understanding the nature of basic inferences: a view in which deductive inferential rules are ‘hardwired’ in us and govern our inferences without being represented, and a v view where basic inferential acts are taken as a primitive ability, not internally informed by logical principles, though encouraged and improved by our direct immersion in inferential practices. I discuss some problems affecting the former proposal problems and leave the prospects of the latter as an open question. Finally, I argue that independently of what it is ultimately to be made of the nature of basic inferences, the adoption problem already indicates the need for rethinking the problem of the justification of basic logical principles and rules and what we hoped to achieve with its solution. vi To the Memory of Jonathan E. Adler vii Acknowledgements The late Jonathan Adler was my advisor when the first three quarters of this dissertation were being prepared. He was extremely supportive and helped me shape the main ideas I defend here. Perhaps one of the most difficult parts of the writing process was to set aside some issues I originally thought should be included. Jonathan had a crucial role in making me see that not everything I wished to include could possibly be discussed. Even in the last months of his life he continued to be there for me, returning comments and checking on my progress. I feel very fortunate to have had him as my advisor and will never forget his kindness and intelligence. Michael Devitt stepped up as my advisor when Jonathan passed away. He gave me encouragement at key moments, always-needed pressure, and valuable and abundant criticism and advice. His die-hard Quinean heart has challenged me and pushed me to better articulate my views. We have certainly disagreed on several issues; I won some battles, he won others, but I know these issues are far from settled and that we will continue discussing them in the future. Working with him on this project and at the Saul Kripke Center has been a lot of fun and I am profoundly indebted to him for his patience and friendship. My committee members and readers have been very generous with their time and have offered thoughtful criticism and advice. Arnold Koslow has been enormously supportive of me and my work since we first met, and I am grateful to him for his vote of confidence and his valuable suggestions. Michael Levin has been a very careful and dedicated reader, making many helpful remarks and criticisms. His interest in my project and the discussions I had with him over the years have been very important to me. Paul Boghossian kindly agreed to set time aside to be one of my readers during a sabbatical. His excellent criticisms will surely keep me occupied in the years to come, and I hope he is aware of how much his positive comments on my writing have meant to me. Gary Ostertag read a number of versions of this dissertation, anticipated different criticisms, and made suggestions to improve my arguments. His generosity, friendship, and support has been vital to me during these years. Each of the members of my committee contributed in different ways to make my work better. And for that, I am truly grateful. Meeting Saul Kripke was, without a doubt, the best part of studying at the Graduate Center. It was, indeed, a life-changing event. I have worked with him at the Saul Kripke Center for many viii years now and the depth of his intelligence and knowledge on virtually any topic never ceases to amaze me. But it is his contagious enthusiasm for philosophical problems – which has served as a reminder, in more than one occasion, of my true reasons for pursuing this subject – and his unwavering intellectual honesty, that I admire the most. It is hard for me to express how grateful I am for getting to know Saul and for having the privilege of working with such an exceptional person. It will be clear to the reader that I have benefited tremendously from conversations with him on the nature of logic and on other philosophical topics. Indeed, I doubt there is a page in this dissertation that doesn’t betray his influence on my work. I also want to thank him for reading and commenting on different versions, for letting me quote his unpublished work, and for agreeing to write a summary of his argument against Descartes’ views on the eternal truths to be included here (chapter 4). Versions of the first three chapters of this dissertation were presented at Fudan University, Pekin University, Southwest University at Chongqing, Shandong University, and the University of Nebraska at Omaha.