[hist-analytic] L-truth, A-truth: Carnap and Grice
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Tue Mar 2 17:31:10 EST 2010
In a message dated 3/2/2010, rbj at rbjones.com writes:
"at the last in the Schilpp volume he concedes defeat to the Quine-Tarski
conspiracy on use of the term "Logical Truth" and starts using A-true
instead of L-true. In "Meaning Postulates" he seems to use the "L-" concepts
Interesting. So, in the new rewrite the "Meaning Postulates" would then
become 'analytic'. Personally, I don't think it was a bad move at all: from
"L" to "A". It does make you wonder about meaning, though.
Suppose I say I use 'snow' to mean snow CONTINGENTLY, i.e. not really
'analytically'. I do it because my parents taught me to. I could have used
"Arthur" (Harrison, Intro to the Philosophy of Language -- Macmillan, ""Arthur"
we could use to refer to snow -- the idea that a natural kind should not
be thus named is a convention we should sometimes _flout" (or words -- what
a genius of insight Harrison is -- born Sussex, this his main work, a
treasure in my Swimming-Pool Library). And suppose I use 'white' CONTINGENTLY
too. So, 'all snow is white' is true iff all snow is white. "All snow is
white" as ANALYTIC meaning postulate? Well, yes, but relying on a few
contingent things, like my choice of labels... etc. So, I would think that L-truth
vs. A-truth, may be read as a move towards a _stronger_ position? I'm
speaking vaguely. I should revise what Grice did say about 'logical' qua
adjective (we know what he said about 'analytic'). I would think he did not care
much -- who DID care, and to boring tears, is Strawson in "Introduction to
Logical Theory": all those introductory chapters before he gets to the gist
of "and" and '.', "not" and "-", "or" and 'v' and "if" and '->', or the
footnote on Grice -- are all about 'logical. Quine in fact has a good one here.
He quotes from Tweedledum (see him as Sir Peter) and Tweedledee (see him
as Paul Grice). Slightly adapted from The Alice Books -- see Alice as
Quine, who met the pair in the spring of 1954:
PAUL (to Q):
If you think we're wax-works, you ought to pay, you know. Wax-works weren't
made to be looked at for nothing, Nohow.
PETER. Contrariwise. If you think we're alive, you ought to speak.
Q. I'm sure I'm very sorry,'
PETER. I know what you're thinking about. But it isn't so, nohow.
if it was so, it might be;
And, if it were so, it would be;
But as it isn't, it ain't.
--- Quine has that as epigraph in "Philosophy of Logics". Cheers. JL
More information about the hist-analytic