Philosophical Studies

, Volume 159, Issue 2, pp 299–319 | Cite as

On the Quinean-analyticity of mathematical propositions

Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the relation between Carnap and Quine’s views on analyticity on the one hand, and their views on philosophical analysis or explication on the other. I argue that the stance each takes on what constitutes a successful explication largely dictates the view they take on analyticity. I show that although acknowledged by neither party (in fact Quine frequently expressed his agreement with Carnap on this subject) their views on explication are substantially different. I argue that this difference not only explains their differences on the question of analyticity, but points to a Quinean way to answer a challenge that Quine posed to Carnap. The answer to this challenge leads to a Quinean view of analyticity such that arithmetical truths are analytic, according to Quine’s own remarks, and set theory is at least defensibly analytic.

Keywords

Carnap Quine Analyticity Explication Mathematics 

References

  1. Benacerraf, P. (1965). What numbers could not be. Philosophical Review, 74, 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carnap, R. (1950). Logical foundations of probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Carnap, R. (1956). Meaning and necessity: A study in semantics and modal logic (2nd ed.). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carnap, R. (1996). The elimination of metaphysics through a logical analysis of language. In: S. Sarkar (Ed.), Science and philosophy in the twentieth century, (Vol. 2). New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
  5. Creath, R. (2007). Quine’s challenge to Carnap. In: Friedman, M., Creath, R. (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap, Chap. 14, (pp. 316–335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dummett, M. (1978). The significance of Quine’s indeterminacy thesis. In: Truth and other enigmas (pp. 375–419). Cambridge: Harvard.Google Scholar
  7. George, A. (2000). On washing the fur without wetting it. Mind, 109(433), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grice, P., & Strawson, P. F. (1956). In defense of a dogma. Philosophical Review, 65, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hallett, M. (1984). Cantorian set theory and the limitation of size. No. 10 in Oxford Logic Guides. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Juhl, C., & Loomis, E. (2010). Analyticity. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Kreisel, G. (1967). Informal rigour and completeness proofs. In: I. Lakatos (Eds.), Problems in the philosophy of mathematics (pp. 138–186). New York: Humanities Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lavers, G. (2008). Carnap, formalism, and informal rigour. Philosophia Mathematica, 16(1), 4–24.Google Scholar
  13. Lavers, G. (2009). Benacerraf’s dilemma and informal mathematics. Review of Symbolic Logic, 2(4), 769–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Quine, W. V. O. (1953). From a logical point of view. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
  16. Quine, W. V. O. (1963). Carnap and logical truth. In: P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, vol. XI of Library of Living Philosophers, (pp. 385–406). La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  17. Quine, W. V. O. (1969). Epistemology naturalized. In: Ontological relativity and other essays, (pp. 69–90). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Quine, W. V. O. (1973). Roots of Reference. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  19. Quine, W. V. O. (2008). Confessions of a confirmed extensionalist and other essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Quine, W. V. O., & Carnap, R. (1990). Dear Carnap, Dear Van: The Quine-Carnap correspondence. California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Russell, G. (2008). Truth in virtue of meaning: A defence of the analytic/synthetic distinction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stein, H. (1992). Was Carnap entirely wrong after all? Synthese, 93(1–2), 275–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations