Once more on analytic vs. synthetic

Pavel Materna

doi:10.12775/LLP.2007.001

Authors

Pavel Materna Academy of Sciences of Czech Republic, Prague

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2007.001

Keywords

analytic, synthetic, intensions, constructions, concepts, pragmatics

Abstract

The boundary between analytic and synthetic sentences is well definable. Quine’s attempt to make it vague is based on a misunderstanding: instead of freeing semantics from shortcomings found, e.g. in Carnap’s work, Quine actually rejects semantics of natural language and replaces it by behavioristically articulated pragmatics. Semantics of natural language as a logical analysis is however possible and it can justify hard and fast lines between analyticity and syntheticity.

Author Biography

Pavel Materna, Academy of Sciences of Czech Republic, Prague

Institute of Philosophy

References

[Anderson 1998] C.A. Anderson: “Alonzo Church’s Contributions to Philosophy and Intensional Logic”, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 4, 2, 129–171.

[Bealer 1982] G. Bealer: Quality and Concept, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

[Bolzano 1837] B. Bolzano: Wissenschaftslehre, Sulzbach.

[Carnap 1947] R.Carnap: Meaning and Necessity, University of Chicago press, Chicago.

[Chierchia 1989] G. Chierchia: “Structured meanings, thematic roles and control”, pp. 131–166 in: G. Chierchia, B.H. Partee, R. Turner (eds.), textitProperties, Types and Meaning, Vol. II, Semantic Issues, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

[Church 1956] A. Church:Introduction to Mathematical Logic I., Princeton.

[Cmorej 2005] P. Cmorej: “Semi-expressions and expressions”, pp. 63–88 in: P. Sousedík (ed.), Language – Logic – Science (in Czech), Filosofia, Prague.

[Cresswell 1975] M.J. Cresswell: “Hyperintensional Logic”, Studia Logica XXXIV, 1, 25–38.

[Cresswell 1985] M.J. Cresswell: Structured Meanings, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

[Duží, Materna 2004] M. Duží and P. Materna: “A Procedural Theory of Concepts and the Problem of Synthetic a priori”, Korean Journal of Logic 7, 1, 1–22.

[Frege 1891] G. Frege: Funktion und Begriff, H. Pohle, Jena.

[Frege 1892] G. Frege: “Über Sinn und Bedeutung”, Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100, 25–50.

[Frege 1892a] G. Frege: “Über Begriff und Gegenstand”, Vierteljahrschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 16, 192–205.

[Horák 2001] A. Horák: The Normal Translation Algorithm in Transparent Intensional Logic for Czech, PhD Thesis, Masaryk University Brno.

[Janssen 1986] T.M.V. Janssen: Foundations and Applications of Montague Grammar. Part I, Amsterdam.

[Jespersen 2003] B. Jespersen: “Why the tuple Theory of structured propositions isn’t a theory of structured propositions”, Philosophia 31, 171–183.

[Jespersen, Materna 2002] B. Jespersen and P. Materna: “Are wooden tables necessarily wooden?” Acta Analytica 17, 115–150.

[Kirkham 1992/1997]R.L. Kirkham: Theories of Truth, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., London.

[Lewis 1972] D. Lewis: “General Semantics”, in: D. Davidson, G. Harman (eds.),

[Materna 1998] P. Materna: Concepts and Objects, Acta Philosophica Fennica 63, Societas Philosophica Fennica, Helsinki.

[Materna 2004] P. Materna: Conceptual Systems, Logos Verlag, Berlin.

[Materna 2004a] P. Materna: “Quine’s criticism of the ‘First Dogma of Empiricism’”, Logic and Logical Philosophy 13, 5–30.

[May 2006] R. May: “The Invariance of Sense”, Journal of Philosophy 103, 111–144.

[Montague 1974] R. Montague: Formal Philosophy, edited by R.H. Thomason, Yale U.P., New Haven.

[Moschovakis 1994] N.Y. Moschovakis: “Sense and Denotation as Algorithm and Value”, pp. 210–249 in: J. Vänäänen, J. Oikkonen (eds.), Lecture Notes in Logic 2, Springer.

[Moschovakis 2006] N.Y. Moschovakis: “A logical calculus of meaning and synonymy”, Linguistics and Philosophy 29, 210–249.

[Quine 1953 (1963)] W.v.O. Quine: “Two dogmas of empiricism”, pp. 20–46 in: From a logical point of view, 2nd ed., Harper & Row, Publishers, New York and Evanston.

[Quine 1960] W.v.O. Quine: Word and Object, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

[Tichý 1966] P. Tichý: “On Explication of the Notion ‘the Content of a Sentence’” (in Czech), Filosofický časopis 14, 364–372. Reprinted in [Tichý 2004, 53–68].

[Tichý 1968] P. Tichý: “Sense and procedure” (in Czech), Filosofický časopis 16, 222–232. Reprinted in [Tichý 2004, 79–92].

[Tichý 1969] P. Tichý: “Intension in Term sof Turing Machines”, Studia Logica 26, 7–25. Reprinted in [Tichý 2004, 95–109].

[Tichý 1983] P. Tichý: “Kripke on necessity a posteriori”, Philosophical Studies 43, 225–241. Reprinted in [Tichý 2004, 507–523].

[Tichý 1988] P. Tichý: The Foundations of Frege’s Logic, De Gruyter, Berlin, New York.

[Tichý 1994] P. Tichý: “The analysis of natural language”, From the Logica Point of View 3, 42–80. Reprinted in [Tichý 2004, 803–841].

[Tichý 1995] P. Tichý: “Constructions as the subject matter of mathematics”, pp. 175–185 in: W. Depauli-Schimanovich, E. Köhler, F. Stadler (eds.), The Foundational Debate: Komplexity and Constructivity in Mathematics and Physics, Kluwer: Dordrecht, Boston, London, Vinna. Reprinted in [Tichý 2004,

–885].

[Tichý 2004] Vl. Svoboda, B. Jespersen, C. Cheyne (eds.), Pavel Tichý’s Collected Papers in Logic and Philosophy, Filosofia, Prague, and University of Otago Press, Dunedin.