[hist-analytic] FTD Web Page, analyticity and semantics

Roger Bishop Jones rbj at rbjones.com
Wed Apr 1 10:16:33 EDT 2009


I have today updated my web site with the first
materials related to my proposed monograph on
"The Fundamental Triple-Dichotomy".

I intend to write this monograph in public view with
all drafts and other materials updated on my web
site on the first of each month.  I am looking for
as much feedback as possible from discussions on
hist-analytic.

Drafts of the monograph will be available throughout
in HTML and in A4 PDF formats (though not in the target
5.25 x 8in paperback format which will I hope eventually be
available from Amazon).
I intend the monograph to be short and intelligible to
a wide audience (something like the readership of Ayer's
"Language Truth and Logic" but I intend there to be
considerable additional materials available from the web
site, include more detailed arguments, formal models,
detailed notes on key documents such as "Two Dogmas" and
"Naming and Necessity".

All of this should be reachable from the main FTD
web page which is itself now prominent at www.rbjones.com.

However one topical document I have not yet linked in
and that is a bit of formal modelling in relation to
definitions of analyticity.

Partly in response to Bruce Aune's critique I am arguing
carefully that three definitions of analyticity, viz:

  1. Kant's "subject contained in predicate"
  2. The positivist "true in virtue of meaning"
  3. My proposed (though hardly mine) "expresses a necessary truth"

are all equivalent, and that the equivalences are all, by the
standards of mathematics, "obvious", i.e. once the definitions
are formalised the proofs are trivial.

A formalisation, with machine checked formal proofs is at:

http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/pp/doc/t001.pdf

It is probably unintelligible but if anyone out there
is interested enough in such formal arguments I would 
appreciate some help in massaging this until it can
be understood by as many philosophers as possible.
I will produce a completely informal version of the
same arguments.

This is also a contribution to my discussion with
Steve about general semantics.  The point being that
general definitions do and language specific definitions
of analyticity do not permit this kind of reasoning,
and that metaphysical qualms about "meanings" should
not prevail against sound methods.
More on this (and the rest) anon.

Roger Jones




More information about the hist-analytic mailing list