[hist-analytic] Carnap and Grice on "meta-language"
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Fri Mar 12 13:36:25 EST 2010
In a message dated 3/8/2010 7:13:26 P.M. rbj at rbjones.com writes about OL
and ML (object language and metalanguage) and whether NL or FL (natural
language or formal language) are good for either.
"I think it matters what purpose you have in mind. His main interest...
would have been in the status of
judgements in the formal object language"
complete with semantics.
"Or else we would switch to a formal metalanguage."
"The latter is certainly my preference."
"we side step as far as possible difficulties
in the semantics of natural languages by stipulative
definition, either of concepts or languages."
which is not, necessarily, to say, 'truth by convention'. I would need to
know the etym. of stipulation. sounds like mani-PULATION, and I wouldn't be
surprised if some think that stipulations should NOT be mismanipulated.
'Peano Arithmetic, but the "PA" usually refers
specifically to first-order arithmetic (Peano's original
axioms were higher order). ...
with "set theory all the time"
"There is a problem of regress in the foundations of abstract
semantics, which corresponds to the problem of the infinite
hierarchy of metalanguages, and this is an interesting
problem which I haven't actually noticed anyone (apart from
myself) taking much interest in. But even for me, its a bit
academic. The problem of regress is not practically
--- Well, I suppose one would hope that the ML is final, if one is going to
pull yourself by your own bootstraps. It SEEMS an academic question how
one is going to pull one's pulling yourself by your own bootstraps. But there
is charm in the hierarchy.
For we can speak of L1, L2, L3, ... Ln -- and if we want, say, English, by
definition to be our only source here, we are assuming a language to be
able to project an ifinite number of orders.
Jenny is beautiful.
Second order (Strawson, Logic and Predicate in Logic and Language)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I would already at a loss to think of a third-order utterance in English.
When presented with a simple SIMPLE second-order one, I cannot make sense of
it unless I translate it to first order, which IS a bother -- "Can't you
SEE beauty? That's lack of vision" -- as someone would say -- Grice contra
"Q" in the last two pages of WoW).
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" tr. to first-order.
Jenny is beautiful TO YOU but not to me, for 'to be beautiful' is not a
monadic predicate but a dyadic one, etc.
But again, higher orders than the second escape me (on a Friday).
J. L. Speranza
More information about the hist-analytic