Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology. Rudolph Carnap. [In this essay Carnap is concerned with the question of the “reality” of the sorts of what he calls “abstract. Rudolf Carnap’s article “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology” deals with the implications of accepting language which refers to abstract entities. Empiricists. Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology. Rudolf Carnap. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4 (): Reprinted in the Supplement to. Meaning and.
|Published (Last):||4 May 2011|
|PDF File Size:||20.56 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The spatio-temporal coordinate system for physics. For ssmantics, the choice of real numbers rather than rational numbers or empiriciem as coordinates is not much influenced by the facts of experience but mainly due to considerations of mathematical simplicity. Empiricists are in general rather suspicious with respect to any kind of abstract entities like properties, classes, relations, numbers, propositions, etc.
For example, are propositions mental events as in Russell’s theory? A physicist who is suspicious of abstract entities may perhaps try to declare a certain part of the language of physics as uninterpreted and uninterpretable, that part which refers to real numbers as space-time coordinates or as values of physical magnitudes, to functions, limits, etc.
Or it may be meant in the external sense: Walid Saba – manuscript. Let us now summarize the essential characteristics of situations involving the cwrnap of a new kind of entities, characteristics which are common to the various examples outlined above.
Are there really numbers, properties, space-time points, propositions, and even things themselves? On the basis of the rational numbers, the real numbers may be introduced as classes of a special kind segments of rational numbers according to the method developed by Dedekind and Frege. On the other hand, the external questions of the reality of physical space and physical time are pseudo-questions. The latter is the name given by Gilbert Ryle 8 to the criticized belief, which, in his view, arises by a naive inference of analogy: Further, a statement of the existence of linguistic entities e.
Carnap, “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology”
Sign in to use this feature. If someone wishes to speak in his language about a new kind of entities, he has to introduce a system of new ways of speaking, subject to new rules; we cafnap call this procedure the construction of a linguistic framework for the new entities in question. Realists give an affirmative answer, subjective idealists a negative one, and the controversy goes on for centuries without ever being solved. In contrast to this view, we ane the position that the introduction of the new ways of speaking does not need any theoretical justification because it does not imply any assertion of reality.
Let us therefore admit that the nominalistic critics may possibly be right.
The latter introduction, they believe, is legitimate only if it can be justified by an ontological insight supplying an affirmative answer to ontoloty question of reality.
Generally emoiricism, if someone accepts a framework for a certain kind of entities, then he is bound to admit the entities as possible designata. For him, the numerals may still be used as meaningful expressions, but they are not names and there are no entities designated by them.
As an example of a system which is of a logical rather than a factual nature let us take the system of natural numbers. It may be meant as an internal question; then the affirmative answer is, of course, analytic and trivial. Once we have accepted the thing language with its framework for things, we can raise and answer internal questions, e. Their doubts refer rather to the system of entities itself; hence they mean the external empiicism. Let us look at different ways of framing this kind of question.
He cites Ernest Nagel who in asked for “evidence relevant for affirming with warrant that there are such entities as infinitesimals or propositions. Ontology in 20th Century Philosophy. Carnap provides the following example of this problem of proof:.
Our choice of certain features, although itself not theoretical, is suggested e,piricism theoretical knowledge, either logical or factual. Propositions are not mental entities. But controversy of the external question of the ontological reality of the system of numbers continues. Majid Davoody Beni – – Philosophia Scientiae 19 1: History of Western Philosophy.
Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology
Perhaps the discussions in the present paper will help in clarifying the role of the system of linguistic rules for the introduction of a framework for entities on the one hand, and that of extra-systematic explanations concerning the nature of the entities on the other. Physics In our last example, the new entities are space-time points in the spatio-temporal coordinate system for physics.
Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning. Some of the criticisms by English philosophers against such references give the impression that, probably due to the misinterpretation just indicated, they accuse the semanticist not so much of bad metaphysics as some nominalists would do but of bad psychology. Let us take as an example the statement:. I will briefly summarize this framework again: The fact that no such reference occurs in the existential statements here, carnqp that propositions are not linguistic entities.
To move on to this physical coordinate system is again a matter of decision of how to use language. Here again a new type of variables is introduced, expressions substitutable for them e. Within the system of propositionsthe very term “proposition” is introduced, where any declarative sentence may be substituted for a variable. However, none of those alternatives are practical, and that is Carnap’s point. A brief historical remark may here be inserted.
Sign in Create an account. Empiricism and Ontology in Rudolf Carnap’s Thought. What is now the nature of the philosophical question concerning the existence or reality of numbers?
In contrast to the former questions, this question is raised neither by the man in the street nor by scientists, but only by philosophers. Ontology, Analyticity, and Meaning: Existence or reality is ascribed only to the data; the constructs are not real entities; the corresponding linguistic expressions are merely ways of speech not actually designating anything reminiscent of the nominalists’ flatus vocis.
Then, variables of the new type are introduced. Kit Fine – – Philosophical Issues 27 1: