pp 1–10 | Cite as

A New Interpretation of Carnap’s Logical Pluralism

  • Teresa KouriEmail author


Rudolf Carnap’s logical pluralism is often held to be one in which corresponding connectives in different logics have different meanings. This paper presents an alternative view of Carnap’s position, in which connectives can and do share their meaning in some (though not all) contexts. This re-interpretation depends crucially on extending Carnap’s linguistic framework system to include meta-linguistic frameworks, those frameworks which we use to talk about linguistic frameworks. I provide an example that shows how this is possible, and give some textual evidence that Carnap would agree with this interpretation. Additionally, I show how this interpretation puts the Carnapian position much more in line with the position given in Shapiro (Varieties of Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014) than had been thought before.


Logical pluralism Carnap Translation Stewart Shapiro 



Thanks to Roy Cook, Geoffrey Hellman, Tristram McPherson, Andrew Parisi, Marcus Rossberg, Kevin Scharp, Stewart Shapiro, Neil Tennant, and a referee for helpful comments on previous drafts. Thanks also to helpful audiences at the 2016 North American Meeting of the Association for Symbolic Logic, the 2016 Society for Exact Philosophy, the 2016 Ohio Philosophical Association, the College of Wooster Philosophy Round Table and the Winter 2016 Dissetration Seminar at Ohio State.


  1. Arthur P (1963) The philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, vol XI. Open Court, LaSalleGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell JL (1998) A primer of infinitesimal analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Carnap R (1937) The logical syntax of language. Harcourt, Brace and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Carnap R (1939) Foundations of logic and mathematics., International encyclopedia of unified scienceThe University of Chicago press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Carnap R (1947) Meaning and necessity: a study in semantics and modal logic. University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Carnap R (1950) Empiricism, semantics and ontology. Rev Int Philos 4(11):20–40. In: Benacerraf P, Putnam H (eds) Reprinted in philosophy of mathematics (1983), pp 241–257Google Scholar
  7. Carnap R, Quine W (1995) Dear Carnap, Dear Van: the Quine-Carnap correspondance and related work. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook RT (2010) Let a thousand flowers bloom: a tour of logical pluralism. Philos Compass 5(6):492–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Devidi D, Solomon G (1995) Tolerance and metalanguages in Carnap’s logical syntax of language. Synthese 103:123–139Google Scholar
  10. Ebbs G (forthcoming) Carnap on ontology. In: carnap, quine and putnam on methods of inquiry. Univeristy Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Field H (2009) Pluralism in logic. Rev Symb Log 2(2):342–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman M (1988) Logical truth and analyticity in Carnap’s “Logical Syntax of Language”. Essays in the history and philosophy of mathematics, pp 82–94Google Scholar
  13. Friedman M (2001) Tolerance and analyticity in Carnap’s philosophy. In: Floyd J, Shieh S (eds) Future pasts: the analytic tradition in twentieth century philosophy, Number August 2012, pp 223–256Google Scholar
  14. Friedman M, Creath R (2007) The cambridge companion to Carnap., Cambridge companions to philosophyCambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hellman G (2006) Mathematical pluralism: the case of smooth infinitesimal analysis. J Philos Log 35(6):621–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horn L (1989) A natural history of negation. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Jennings R (1994) The genealogy of disjunction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Koellner P (forthcoming) Carnap on the foundations of mathematicsGoogle Scholar
  19. Quine WVO (1951) Two dogmas of empiricism. Philos Rev 60(1):20–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Restall G (2002) Carnap’s tolerance, language change and logical pluralism. J Philos 99:426–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shapiro S (2014) Varieties of logic. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steinberger F (2015) How tolerant can you be? Carnap on rationality. Philos Phenomenol Res 2009:1–24Google Scholar
  23. Tennant N (2007) Carnap, Godel, and the analyticity of arithmetic. Philos Math 16(1):100–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wagner P (2009) Carnap’s logical syntax of language., History of analytic philosophyPalgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations