Heidegger ist durch seinen eigenwilligen Sprachgebrauch einer der dunkelsten Denker unserer Zeit. Dies ist jedoch kein Zeichen von Willkür oder unbegründeter Sucht nach Ürsprünglichkeit, für ihn hängt die Sprache wesentlich mit seinem Philosophieren zusammen (1). Vor allem ist von Seiten der angloamerikanischen Sprachanalytiker an diesem Sprachgebrauch viel Kritik geübt, u.a. durch Carnap. Ausdrücke wie „das Nichtige nichtet” finden in den empirischen Situationen kein Echo, entziehen sich der Methode der Verifikation, erfüllen keine einzige Wahrheitsvoraussetzung und können keine Protokollsätze sein (2). Dennoch, (...) Heideggers Methode kann, vermöge der Art seiner Untersuchung, der Frage nach dem Sinn des Seins, nicht die der logischen Analyse sein ; sie ist die phänomenologische Methode, die für die Ontologie in ihren Fragen nach dem Sinn des Seins die angemessenste Methode ist (3). Heidegger meint, daß die Vorsokratiker in ihrer dichterischen Formgebung dem ursprünglichen Sinn des Seins äußerst nahegekommen sind. Seine Intention beschränkt sich nicht allein auf eine etymologische Analyse von Begriffen wie „physis”, „logos”, „aletheia” usw., wodurch er das Sein zu entbergen sucht, er will mit dieser Analyse auch und vor allem ein neues Fundament legen für unser heutiges Denken und unsere Einstellung dem Sein gegenüber (4). Um dies deutlich zu machen, wählen wir Heideggers Auseinandersetzung mit dem Logosbegriff bei Heraklit im Fragment 50 (Diels), den er in Vorträge und Aufsätze III (Pfüfflingen 1967, S. 3-25) einer minuziösen Untersuchung unterzieht. Heidegger fragt sich, was die ursprüngliche Bedeutung von Logos ist, und er sucht zu beweisen, daß „legein” nicht ursprünglich „sprechen” bedeutet, sondern in dem deutschen „legen” (vorlegen, darlegen, überlegen) wiedergefunden wird, „legein” konnte sprechen bedeuten, weil sprechen besagt : „Beisammen-vor-uns-liegen-lassen”. Deshalb kann nach Heidegger die Sprache nicht als „Verlautbarung” oder „Bedeuten” gedeutet werden. Ausdruck und Bedeutung sind beide Phänomene der Sprache als das „Beisammen-voruns-liegen-lassen” des Unverborgenen in seiner Unverborgenheit. Das Sprechen muß nach Heidegger den Spielraum der Unverborgenheit, mit dem das Hören korrespondieren muß, offenlassen. Das Hören nach dem Logos ist ein „homologein”, dem Logos zugehörig. Ist man dem Logos zugehörig, so ist man in dem Sinne weise, daß man sich in das schickt (geschicklich), was dem Menschen zugewiesen ist : Heidegger widersetzt sich der herrschenden Interpretation von Fr. 50. Das „Eins-Alles” zielt nicht auf den Inhalt der Verkündigung des Logos, sondern vielmehr auf die Weise, in der der Logos anwesend ist, die Weise, in der er wirkt und wohl als das Eine, das alles ausschließt, das lichtende Sammeln, Zusammentragen, das Bergen aller Gegebenheiten in die Offenheit der Welt. Er birgt und entbirgt. Unverborgenheit und Verborgenheit sind Pole dieses einen Seinsereignisses. So bleiben die Gegensätze innerhalb des Lichtkreises der Unverborgenheit bestehen und aufeinander angewiesen. Heidegger identifiziert den Logos mit dem „Hen-Panta”, weil „ Hen-Panta” sagt, was der Logos ist, und der Logos sagt, wie „Hen-Panta” anwesend ist. Wenn der Mensch die Sprache des Logos spricht, sammelt er auch die Dinge, läßt er sie vor-sichliegen, bringt er die Anwesenheit der Dinge in ihrem Anwesen zur Sprache, läßt sie zu ihrem Recht kommen, dabei durch das ursprüngliche „Einen” des Logos geleitet, das „Hen-Panta” ist. Heidegger weist darauf hin, daß dies kein pantheistischer Gedankengang ist. Heraklit will, so meint er, vor dem Geheimnis dieser Worte stehenbleiben, um so das Geheimnis als Geheimnis zu erkennen. Er meint, daß der durch die Vorsokratiker geöffnete Weg durch die Denkentwicklung seit Plato verschleiert geblieben ist. Heidegger sieht in Fr. 50 von Heraklit den stammelnden Ausdruck des noch nicht in Subjekt und Objekt aufgeteilten Seins. In dem Wort Logos dachte Heraklit das Sein des Seienden. Dieses Licht verblaßte schnell. Für Heidegger liegt die große Bedeutung Heraklits in dessen Anregung, in Übereinstimmung mit der Logossprache zu sprechen und den Weg einzuschlagen, den er uns gezeigt hat durch ein uns Offenhalten für das entbergendverbergende Sein (5). Auf wirklich geniale Weise hat Heidegger der Logosphilosophie die Gewalt seines eigenen Denkens verliehen. Diese Auslegung lehrt uns mehr über seine eigene Philosophie, als über die Heraklits. Heidegger ist gefesselt durch das mystisch-prophetische Element in Heraklits Philosophieren. So wie Heraklit der Dolmetscher der Masse sein will, die dem Logos widerspricht, obwohl sie fortwährend darüber spricht, so fühlte Heidegger sich berufen ein Hermeneut zu sein, auf dem durch die Seinsvergessenheit verdunkelten Weg des denkens nach einem neuen (An) denken des Seins. Betroffen ist Heidegger durch die Idee der Einheit, die sich in dem Logos erschließt. Der Logos offenbart sich in der Welt durch Gegensätze, in denen die Einheit sich fortwährend erneuert. Das Denken Heideggers ist von Anfang an auf das Ans-Licht-bringen des (oft) vergessenen, verborgenen Zusammenhängens gerichtet, in dem alles was ist erscheint. Aus dieser Interpretation wird deutlich, wie wertvoll eine Konfrontation der eigenen Zeit mit der Vergangenheit sein kann, angesichts der Gratie, durch die die Geschichte der Philosophie aktuell bleibt (6). Unser großes Bedenken gegen diese Interpretation ist, daß Heidegger sich keine Rechenschaft über die textkritischen Schwierigkeiten dieses Textes gegeben hat. Es ist die Frage, ob wohl Logos im ursprünglichen Text gestanden hat. Wir haben versucht, dies aufzuzeigen. Gleichfalls ist es sehr bedenklich, daß Heidegger „legein” und „legen” etymologisch im Zusammenhang sieht, was deshalb nicht möglich ist, weil beide Wörter auf im Wesen verschiedene indoeuropäische Wurzeln zurückgehen. Unsere Schlußfolgerung ist, daß Heideggers Auslegung von Fr. 50 uns mehr über die Philosophie von Heidegger selbst, als über die Logosphilosophie von Heraklit lehrt. Es ist besonders zu bedauern, daß Heidegger, der sich gerne rühmt die Belange der Wissenschaftlichkeit zu vertreten, die für die Interpretation griechischer Texte unentbehrliche philologische Vorarbeit vernachlässigt hat. (shrink)

He then proceeds with an examination of the picture theory developed by Wittgenstein, Carnap, and Goodman, and concludes with an examination of Patricia Churchland, Ruth Millikan, Robert Cummins, and Mark Rollins. The use of the historical development of representationalism to pose a central problem in contemporary cognitive science is unique.

Quine's well-known ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’ (1951) plays a key role in the debate about the analytic-synthetic distinction. Taking to task the ideas of Carnap in particular, Quine shows that logical positivism works with a concept of scientific rationality that is based dogmatically on, among other things, the opposition analytic-synthetic.

Originally published in 1958. A study in the logical foundations of modern theoretical semantics, this book is concerned with notions of designation and consistency as well as denotation and truth. It presents several semantical theories, each of which with what were new concepts or treatments from the author. Talking at a time when semantical theory was gained great ground, this book also looks at the methodology of the sciences and the semantics of scientific language alongside analysis of meaning and expression. (...) It is influenced by the writings of Carnap, Church, Frege, Goodman, Quine, Russell and Tarski. (shrink)

Originally published in 1958. A study in the logical foundations of modern theoretical semantics, this book is concerned with notions of designation and consistency as well as denotation and truth. It presents several semantical theories, each of which with what were new concepts or treatments from the author. Talking at a time when semantical theory was gained great ground, this book also looks at the methodology of the sciences and the semantics of scientific language alongside analysis of meaning and expression. (...) It is influenced by the writings of Carnap, Church, Frege, Goodman, Quine, Russell and Tarski. (shrink)

William Lane Craig maintains that propositions and properties are not real. Yet, if we examine his proposed nominalism and his appeal to Rudolf Carnap’s linguistic frameworks, we can find that his view depends upon their reality, even as abstract objects. By drawing upon phenomenological insights, I argue that if we pay close attention to what can be before our minds in conscious awareness, we can become aware that there is more to what is real than simple, concrete particulars, even in (...) his linguistic examples. We can become aware of the reality of Platonic, ante rem universals, including propositions and properties. (shrink)

This article examines how Quine and Sellars develop informatively contrasting responses to a fundamental tension in Carnap’s semantics ca. 1950. Quine’s philosophy could well be styled ‘Essays in Radical Empiricism’; his assay of radical empiricism is invaluable for what it reveals about the inherent limits of empiricism. Careful examination shows that Quine’s criticism of Carnap’s semantics in ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’ fails, that at its core Quine’s semantics is for two key reasons incoherent and that his hallmark Thesis of Extensionalism (...) is untenable. The tension in Carnap’s semantics together with Quine’s exposure of the severe limits of radical empiricism illuminate central features of Sellars’s philosophy: the fully general form of the myth of givenness, together with Sellars’s alternative Kantian characterisation of understanding; the full significance of Carnap’s distinction between conceptual analysis and conceptual explication, and its important methodological implications; the specifically pragmatic character of Sellars’s realism; and Sellars’s methodological reasons for holding that philosophy must be systematic and that systematic philosophy must be deeply historically and textually informed. This paper thus re-examines this recent episode of philosophical history for its philosophical benefits and systematic insights. (shrink)

CENTRAL TO COHEN’S NEW THEORY OF INDUCTION IS THE CLAIM THAT THE SUPPORT GIVEN BY EVIDENCE TO A HYPOTHESIS IS NOT A FUNCTION WHICH OBEYS THE AXIOMS OF THE PROBABILITY CALCULUS. THIS CLAIM DEPENDS ON THE TRUTH OF COHEN’S INSTANTIAL COMPARABILITY PRINCIPLE. UNDER NATURAL INTERPRETATIONS OF ’SUPPORT’, THIS PRINCIPLE IS FALSE. EVEN IF IT IS TRUE UNDER OTHER INTERPRETATIONS OF ’SUPPORT’, THAT DOES NOT SHOW THAT CONFIRMATION IN CARNAP’S SENSE DOES NOT OBEY THE AXIOMS.

William Lane Craig rejects Platonism (the view that uncreated abstract objects (AOs) exist) in favor of nominalism because he believes Platonism fatally compromises God’s aseity. For Craig, concrete particulars (including essences) exist, but properties do not. Yet, we use property-talk, following Carnap’s “linguistic frameworks.” There is, however, a high cost to Craig’s view. I survey his views and then explore the importance of essences. But, next, I show that his nominalism undermines them. Thus, we have just interpretations of reality. Worse, (...) nominalism undermines creation’s determinacy. Last, I suggest AOs are created, but in a more fundamental sense than Craig considers. (shrink)

A revised edition of the author's dissertation, originally published in 1941 and for several years out of print. The major change is in Chapter VI, "Formal Analysis of Inductive Probability," which has been entirely rewritten so as to take into account more recent writings on the logic of induction by Carnap, Reichenbach and others. Although studies in logic are not neglected, the author remains primarily concerned with the philosophic problem of finding a rational justification for inductive arguments. There is an (...) excellent bibliography, but no index.--A. R. A. (shrink)

Day argues that the meaning of "probable" is partly evaluative and partly descriptive--to say that a proposition is probable is both to recommend its assertion and to say that a certain procedure shows it to be so. The paradigm of an inductive probability judgment, which is the major concern of the book, is "The fact that all observed A's are B's makes it probable that all A's are B's." Several more complex kinds of probability judgments are distinguished and discussed in (...) detail, the author's own theory being illuminated by extensive criticism of the views of other philosophers, including Aristotle, Hume, Whewell, Mill, Peirce, Russell, Braithwaite, Carnap, and Von Wright. Philosophic problems related to induction, such as the existence of other minds and the reliability of memory, are briefly discussed. Ambitious in scope and carefully executed, the book demands, and rewards, close study.--J. R. W. (shrink)

It is a shame that this volume which was started a decade ago should have been so long in preparation. The result is that many of the critical papers have been superseded by more recent investigations. Nevertheless, there are a number of respects in which this is an extremely valuable book. It contains Carnap's autobiography, written in the direct and careful style that is so characteristic of his work. Carnap also patiently and systematically answers the objections raised by his critics. (...) And there is an invaluable annotated bibliography of his writings. But the dominant impression of the volume as a whole is that of summing up the contribution and limitations of one of the twentieth-century's most important and influential philosophers.—R. J. B. (shrink)

The scope of this study is both ambitious and modest. One of its ambitions is to reintegrate Hegel's theory of knowledge into main stream epist~ology. Hegel's views were formed in consideration of Classical Skepticism and Modern epistemology, and he frequently presupposes great familiarity with other views and the difficulties they face. Setting Hegel's discussion in the context of both traditional and contemporary epistemology is therefore necessary for correctly interpreting his issues, arguments, and views. Accordingly, this is an issues-oriented study. I (...) analyze Hegel's problematic and method by placing them in the context of Sextus Empiricus, Descartes, Kant, Carnap, and William Alston. I discuss Carnap, rather than a Modern empiricist such as Locke or Hume, for several reasons. One is that Hegel himself refutes a fundamental presupposition of Modern empiricism, the doctrine of "knowledge by acquaintance," in the first chapter of the Phenomenology, a chapter that cannot be reconstructed within the bounds of this study. (shrink)

It is a high merit of this book to emphasize that "philosophy properly speaking is characterized by the kind of logic it employs, for what it employs it assumes, however silently; and what it assumes it presupposes. The logic stands behind the ontology and is, so to speak, metaphysically prior." By "logic" here is meant a species of philosophical logic, concerned in part with "systematic metaphysics" and with "critical ontology." The term "Grand Logic" is due to Peirce, but has been (...) given a more modern reading by George Berry and Hao Wang. Feibleman uses the phrase in the plural to seek out the "common assumptions of the leading western logicians from Aristotle to Quine." However, the only logicians whose work is discussed at any depth are Aristotle, Frege, Whitehead, Russell, and Quine, with only the most casual reference to Ockham, Duns Scotus, Leibniz, De Morgan, Boole, Schröder, Peirce himself, Lesniewski, Carnap, Tarski, and Gödel, all "leading" logicians surely in any suitable list. Also there is total neglect of all recent work in systematic semantics and pragmatics of the very kind that is of the greatest metaphysical relevance. To determine with precision the assumptions common to the work of all of these writers would be a formidable historical as well as analytic task. Nonetheless, the use of modern logic in the detailed formulation of specific metaphysical systems has great promise for the future, as does the criticism of alternative "logics" within the context of specific metaphysical assumptions.--R.M.M. (shrink)

This paper outlines three broad ways one might think about logical correctness: the Realist approach, the One-Language approach and my own Neo-Carnapian view. Although the realist and one-language views have dominated the philosophy of logic in recent years, I argue against them, favouring of the Neo-Carnapian approach.

In this work R. M. Martin carries his semiotical studies into the fields of intensional semantics and pragmatics, dealing with such philosophically important concepts as meaning, preference, reasonableness and indifference. The crucial notion is that of the meaning or intension of an expression. Two major categories are distinguished, objective intensions and subjective intensions. To deal with objective intensions an intensional semantics is developed as an extension of denotational semantics in the tradition of Tarski, Carnap and Martin's earlier Truth and Denotation. (...) In the treatment of subjective intensions Martin makes an advance over his earlier study of pragmatics by utilizing the work of von Neumann and Morgenstern in their Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.—R. H. K. (shrink)

Tarski’s conceptual analysis of the notion of logical consequence is one of the pinnacles of the process of defining the metamathematical foundations of mathematics in the tradition of his predecessors Euclid, Frege, Russell and Hilbert, and his contemporaries Carnap, Gödel, Gentzen and Turing. However, he also notes that in defining the concept of consequence “efforts were made to adhere to the common usage of the language of every day life.” This paper addresses the issue of what relationship Tarski’s analysis, and (...) Béziau’s further generalization of it in universal logic, have to reasoning in the everyday lives of ordinary people from the cognitive processes of children through to those of specialists in the empirical and deductive sciences. It surveys a selection of relevant research in a range of disciplines providing theoretical and empirical studies of human reasoning, discusses the value of adopting a universal logic perspective, answers the questions posed in the call for this special issue, and suggests some specific research challenges. (shrink)

With the publication of this volume from the prolific pen of one of Germany's outstanding younger philosophers, the German-speaking scholarly world has a more extensive survey of key issues in the philosophy of science than the English-speaking world. The book is the first of a comprehensive work whose title is "Problems and Results in the Philosophy of Science and Analytic Philosophy." While the title of the book under consideration shows that it is primarily concerned with scientific explanation and justification, Stegmüller (...) not merely undertakes to acquaint his readers with the most important Anglo-American developments concerning these topics, but also independently develops his own ideas with respect to them and an important, if brief, feature of the volume is an appendix in which he sets forth over thirty "problems that are either unsolved or the solution of which is controversial." Without going into substantival detail, perhaps the quickest way to indicate Stegmüller's main concerns and general orientation is to note the extent of the page references in the index of names where, in descending order, one finds the names of Carl G. Hempel, to whom the volume is dedicated, R. Carnap, N. Goodman, N. Rescher, W. V. Quine, P. Oppenheim, E. Nagel, W. Dray and K. Popper. Curiously, Stegmüller indicates that, aside from Hempel, the man who has exercised the greatest influence on him has been Sir Karl Popper, but then he limits his consideration of him mainly to Popper's early exposition of explanation by reference to the breaking of a thread, while ignoring what he has to say about such topics as falsification, induction, and the problem of demarcation. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that there are no references to P. Duhem, J. Agassi, and P. Feyerabend, but there are also none to G. Bergmann, M. Bunge, P. Frank, N. R. Hanson, A. Koyré, V. Kraft, G. Radnitzky, and J. J. C. Smart, to mention just a few.--R. F. M. (shrink)

The paper explores the handling of singular analogy in quantitative inductive logics. It concentrates on two analogical patterns coextensive with the traditional argument from analogy: perfect and imperfect analogy. Each is examined within Carnap’s λ-continuum, Carnap’s and Stegmüller’s λ-η continuum, Carnap’s Basic System, Hintikka’s α-λ continuum, and Hintikka’s and Niiniluoto’s K-dimensional system. Itis argued that these logics handle perfect analogies with ease, and that imperfect analogies, while unmanageable in some logics, are quite manageable in others. The paper concludes with a (...) modification of the K-dimensional system that synthesizes independent proposals by Kuipers and Niiniluoto. (shrink)

It is convenient to review these two books together because of the obvious indebtedness of the latter to the former. The book by Carnap is the first English translation of his classic Der Logische Aufbau der Welt initially published in Berlin in 1928. It also includes his short Scheinprobleme in der Philosophic published first in the same year. The translator has produced a very readable text of two complex works and Carnap has added a new preface outlining his present attitude (...) to his work of over thirty years ago together with a short bibliography of recent publications relevant to the Aufbau. (shrink)

In this work R. M. Martin carries his semiotical studies into the fields of intensional semantics and pragmatics, dealing with such philosophically important concepts as meaning, preference, reasonableness and indifference. The crucial notion is that of the meaning or intension of an expression. Two major categories are distinguished, objective intensions and subjective intensions. To deal with objective intensions an intensional semantics is developed as an extension of denotational semantics in the tradition of Tarski, Carnap and Martin's earlier Truth and Denotation. (...) In the treatment of subjective intensions Martin makes an advance over his earlier study of pragmatics by utilizing the work of von Neumann and Morgenstern in their Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.—R. H. K. (shrink)

The second edition of this book on the problem of truth and the idea of semantics is an unchanged reprint of a volume originally published in 1957. While it is formally organized into twelve chapters, it effectively falls into three parts of which the first two primarily deal with the theories of A. Tarski and R. Carnap. Aside from a brief chapter on "Semantics, Quantification Theory and Metamathematics," the final part consists of a chapter, which the author entitles "Epistemological-Theoretical Discussion (...) of Semantic Concepts." In this the longest, and for anybody acquainted with the theories of Tarski and Carnap, probably most valuable chapter of the book, Stegmüller deals with a dozen objections to the semantic conception of truth, the importance of semantic concepts for various disciplines, including logic, mathematics, epistemology, and the empirical sciences, with the interrelation between semantic linguistic analysis and Wittgensteinian ideas, and finally with Quine's criticism of the analytic--synthetic distinction and certain aspects of the ensuing discussion up to the time of the book's original publication. To ascertain the author's current ideas about many of the topics with which he deals, it is obviously necessary to turn to his more recent writings. This book stands as an example of its author's incomparable clarity of critical exposition.--R. F. M. (shrink)

Normal texts and courses in logic are usually so preoccupied with the teaching of techniques that there is little opportunity to discuss some of the interesting and provocative issues in logical theory and the philosophy of logic. This book of readings is designed to supplement a course in symbolic logic. While there are few surprises or novelties here, there is a helpful selection from the writings of Frege, Russell, Strawson, Quine, Carnap, Von Wright, and others. The short introductions to the (...) various selections by the editors are all too brief.—R. J. B. (shrink)

The second edition of this book on the problem of truth and the idea of semantics is an unchanged reprint of a volume originally published in 1957. While it is formally organized into twelve chapters, it effectively falls into three parts of which the first two primarily deal with the theories of A. Tarski and R. Carnap. Aside from a brief chapter on "Semantics, Quantification Theory and Metamathematics," the final part consists of a chapter, which the author entitles "Epistemological-Theoretical Discussion (...) of Semantic Concepts." In this the longest, and for anybody acquainted with the theories of Tarski and Carnap, probably most valuable chapter of the book, Stegmüller deals with a dozen objections to the semantic conception of truth, the importance of semantic concepts for various disciplines, including logic, mathematics, epistemology, and the empirical sciences, with the interrelation between semantic linguistic analysis and Wittgensteinian ideas, and finally with Quine's criticism of the analytic--synthetic distinction and certain aspects of the ensuing discussion up to the time of the book's original publication. To ascertain the author's current ideas about many of the topics with which he deals, it is obviously necessary to turn to his more recent writings. This book stands as an example of its author's incomparable clarity of critical exposition.--R. F. M. (shrink)

An accelerated introductory text in symbolic logic, this work is a translation and revision of Carnap's 1954 Einführung.... The latter portion of the book is devoted to semantics and to axiom systems in areas as diverse as geometry and biology.--R. P.

Day argues that the meaning of "probable" is partly evaluative and partly descriptive--to say that a proposition is probable is both to recommend its assertion and to say that a certain procedure shows it to be so. The paradigm of an inductive probability judgment, which is the major concern of the book, is "The fact that all observed A's are B's makes it probable that all A's are B's." Several more complex kinds of probability judgments are distinguished and discussed in (...) detail, the author's own theory being illuminated by extensive criticism of the views of other philosophers, including Aristotle, Hume, Whewell, Mill, Peirce, Russell, Braithwaite, Carnap, and Von Wright. Philosophic problems related to induction, such as the existence of other minds and the reliability of memory, are briefly discussed. Ambitious in scope and carefully executed, the book demands, and rewards, close study.--J. R. W. (shrink)