[hist-analytic] Carnap, Grice: "philosophical logician" versus "philosopher of logic"
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Sun Mar 7 19:37:21 EST 2010
In a message dated 3/7/2010 4:50:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rbj at rbjones.com writes:
Not convinced that that is the correct delineation.
"Philosophy of logic" surely must be philosophy, whereas
"philosophical logic" must be a kind of logic; doesn't that
jump out from the grammar??
Right -- but recall: grammar is only a "pretty good guide" to logical form!
But I am wondering. When I did teach logic, I felt so _guilty_. All those
faces, looking at me for me to provide inference rules! Before the
springbreak they are already convinced that horseshoe does some things!
---- So I am thinking:
Lit.Hum. programme, Oxford.
They should take a course as provided by
The Wykeham professor of logic.
-- _He_ is not a logician, or a philosopher.
He is the Wykeham professor of logic.
So the student, let's call him Tom (or Tommy)
"The professor said that the horseshoe, together
with the squiggly makes for a turnstile".
(the squiggly is the sign for "-", and the turnstile is the Frege assertion
What the Wykeham professor of logic is saying is not logic. Why, he is no
logician. It's not philosophy of logic either. Why he is a professor, not a
----- I would think that one may compare this with
"prof. of mathematical logic", Oxford. St. Giles, Department of
What he says is no logic. Why, he is only a "professor of" mathematical
So I would think, --- there's LOGIC.
That's a system. System G. Say. It's even rude to call it 'logic' because
System G may incorporate 'temporal variables' which are not really part of
the "logic" of it.
That is something that exists: it's a PRODUCT. The process is what anyone
who submitted is has done: a person or a machine. That would be a LOGICIAN.
Plus, there are people called philosophers (machines, less likely) -- but
if Noel Coward is right that 'probably we'll live to see machines do it,
let's do it, let's fall in love' you never know. And if a philosopher
philosophises on logic, he is doing, as you say, "philosophy of X", philosophy of
I claim that is what Grice is doing. But he is (I love him) pretentious
enough. Similarly, when he has the sections of PGRICE separated, it's
"Philosophical Psychology" -- but the work of the editors is relevant here --.
Rather than, say, "philosophy of mind". So, in the same vein, or by the same
token, one would say that
"a philosophical psychologist"
is a psychologist.
But NONE of the psychologists I met will endure, bare, afford, tolerate,
that! They are so narrow minded and myopically concentrated on Wundt, that
whatever Aristotle said in "De Anima" (Peri Psycheos) goes over their
I would expect, on a bad day, the same from logicians!
--- Think keywords:
PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC
And now let's be reminded of Grice's 'casual' wording in the second William
James lecture. Grice _is_ 'causal' by nature: all he said, and rightly so,
is within this context of convivial philosophy: the talk, the
conversation, the open class, the seminar, etc.:
The first sentence from this thing that linguists have learned almost by
heart -- some of them without understanding the gist of it! :( --
"It is a commonplace of philosophical logic that..."
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
--- the 6th and 8th word: "philosophical logic"
"... there are, or appear to be, divergences
in meaning between, one the one hand,
at least some of what I shall call
the formal devices" (never logical constants)
"-, \/, /\, (Ax), (Ex), (ix) (when these are
given a standard two-valued interpretation) --
and, on the other, what are taken to be
their analogues or counterparts in
-- he'll never say English!
"such expressions as 'not', 'and', 'or',
'if', 'all', 'some'
" "(or "at least some") he adds in a bracket
indicating that he is NOT onto the
counterparts but the original
So, if one presses the use of "philosophical logic" there, Grice is
--- there are practitioners of such a thing, 'philosophical logic'.
--- that those practitioners should perhaps not inappropriately be called
I once was wedded to linguistics, but did not want, of course, to say,
that Grice was one. (Imagine the 'treason' one may feel if one starts a
programme in philosophy and comes out as a linguist!). So I found some
expressions, in I think Allwood, or other, to the effect that there possibly is such
a thing as
in which case, this woud be practiced, no doubt, by the
"philosophical linguist" -- but I never met one!
--- With "pragmatics" it's even more aggravating. "Pragmatics", as promoted
by the IPrA (quite a few euros per month they desire!) is _the_ truly
interdisciplinary discipline. But there's
-- Grice no doubt, and the rest.
And then there's -- I recall my local mentor on this, Thomas Moro Simpson,
"philosophical semantics" -- "semantica filosofica" in the THICK book of
his compilation that included a vernacular tr. of Strawon, "On referring" by
my PhD thesis director, the late E. A. Rabossi.
And a practitioner of which would be a
We were discussing those things with Horn, and to his horror, if I may say
so, we found that the OED recognises perhaps the first use of
'pragmaticist' as coming from his colleague at Yale, Harold Bloom. But I forget if we
found, or they found, an earlier use of 'pragmaticist' to mean otherwise. I
have found "pragmaticist" a bit of a mouthful. I find "philosopher" a bit of
a mouthful, but my use of 'foolosopher' (c) by Hobbes, (OED) did fall flat
in some quarters ("Surely we deserve some respect!", someone said, I
recall him alright -- but I wasn't meaning all philosophers were such, of
course). What bothers me about 'pragmaticist' is that it looks quite like the
more venerable, 'pragmatist' -- after all it was a Peirceian, Morrisian
invention, Carnap was pretty familiar with.
And we don't want to say that a metaphilosopher _is_ a philosopher. Having
seen who contributes to A. Marsoobian, "Metaphilosophy" (I love him) I
HOPE he will accept contributions by, say, sociologists on serendipity and
such. In fact, it may be claimed that to do true metaphilosophy it's best to
leave the Emperor's clothes behind, or something.
J. L. Speranza
More information about the hist-analytic