[hist-analytic] Carnap and Grice on "logical"

Jlsperanza at aol.com Jlsperanza at aol.com
Sun Mar 7 19:43:07 EST 2010


In a message dated 3/7/2010 4:50:54 P.M. Eastern  Standard Time, 
rbj at rbjones.com writes:
did intend firstly to opine that  Carnap's change was a 
purely verbal concession and did not reflect his  agreement 
with Quine and Tarski on the use of the term "Logical".  

---- Point very well, indeed gladly, taken. I wonder if you can provide the 
 Tarski ref. This Polish scholar (logician?) did interact profusely with 
Carnap,  but less so (even at the cross-citational level) with Tarski. By 
Quine I take we  mean "Two dogmas" and Quine's contribution (the cheek! :() to 
Schlipp. Perhaps  we can expand on Carnap on reply to Quine therein. Are we 
meaning the very early  1930s thing by Tarski on his failed attempt at 
formalisation of natural  languages? -- in which case perhaps we do need a 
specific meaning-thingy (what  to use instead of 'postulate') to specify the 
Carnap(ian), neo-Carnapian (and  perhaps Gricean, neo-Gricean) use of 'logic', and 
'logicAL'? 

JLS




More information about the hist-analytic mailing list