Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comments on logical form

  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. I mention only “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism,”,Monist, 28:495–527 (1918);ibid., 29:32–63, 190–222, 345–80 (1919), especially pp. 60 and 202ff;Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1919);Our Knowledge of the External World (New York: Norton, 1914); “Reply to Criticisms,” inThe Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, P. A. Schilpp, editor (Evanston, Ill.: Library of Living Philosophers, 1946), p. 698. Since Russell, in the last mentioned book, deals with theform of sentences, as far as I know for the first time, having dealt in previous publications only with the forms of propositions and facts, I presume he has recognized that the difficulties connected with the "constituents" of propositions and fact are insur-mountable. The following discussion will therefore deal with sentential equiformity only.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cf. the next paragraph.

  3. These definitions, as well as the concluding paragraphs of this paper are of moderate accuracy only. Stricter definitions are given by R. Carnap in hisLogical Syntax of Language (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Truebner & Co., 1937), pp. 169–70. See also my elaboration of these definitions in “On Syntactical Categories,"Journal of Symbolic Logic, 15:1–16 (1950).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem

    Yehoshua Bar-Hillel

Authors
  1. Yehoshua Bar-Hillel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bar-Hillel, Y. Comments on logical form. Philos Stud 2, 26–29 (1951). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02199419

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02199419

Keywords

Search

Navigation