Advertisement

Changing the Subject: Quine, Putnam and Waismann on Meaning-Change, Logic, and Analyticity

  • Stewart Shapiro
Chapter
Part of the Outstanding Contributions to Logic book series (OCTR, volume 9)

Abstract

Hilary Putnam’s views on analyticity, synonymy, and meaning-change loom large in his writing on logic, mathematics, and science. In “The analytic and the synthetic” (Scientific explanation, space, and time, Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 358–397, 1962), Putnam argues that (i) Quine is wrong in claiming that there just is no analytic-synthetic distinction, but (ii) Quine is right in arguing that analyticity plays no significant role in the philosophy or science (except, perhaps, linguistics). In some interesting ways, Putnam’s views on these matters connect with those developed in Friedrich Waismann’s “Analytic-synthetic”, published serially in Analysis (Analysis 10:25–40, [1949], Analysis 11:25–38, [1950], Analysis 11:49–61, [1951a], Analysis 11:115–124, [1951b], Analysis 13:1–4, [1952], Analysis 13:73–89, [1953]), around the same period as Quine’s “Two dogmas of empiricism” (Philosophical Review 60:20–43, 1951). Waismann provides a rich and subtle conception of analyticity and meaning, and the role that analyticity and synonymy play in linguistic interpretation (see also Waismann in Proceedings of theAristotelian Society, Supplementary 19:119–150, [1945]).

References

  1. Benacerraf, P., & Putnam, H. (1983). Philosophy of mathematics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Grice, P., & Strawson, P. F. (1956). In defense of a dogma. Philosophical Review, 65, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Haslanger, S. (2015). Resisting reality: Social construction and social critique. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Poincaré, H. (1908). Science and method, foundation of science (H. Poincaré, & G. Halsted, Trans.). New York: The Science Press (1921).Google Scholar
  5. Putnam, Hilary. (1957). Three valued logic. Philosophical Studies, 8, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Putnam, H. (1962). The analytic and the synthetic. In H. Feigel & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Scientific explanation, space, and time, Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 3, pp. 358–397). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (Reprinted in Readings in the philosophy of language, pp. 94–126, by J. Rosenberg & C. Travis, Eds., 1971, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall).Google Scholar
  7. Putnam, H. (1967). Mathematics without foundations. Journal of Philosophy, 64, 5–22; Benacerraf and Putnam. (1983), 295–311.Google Scholar
  8. Putnam, H. (1968). Is logic empirical?. In R. S. Cohen, & M. W. Wartofsky (Eds.), Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 5, pp. 216–241). Dordrecht: D. Reidel. (Reprinted as “The Logic of Quantum Mechanics” in Philosophical Papers 1, pp. 174–197, by H. Putnam, 1975, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  9. Quine, W. V. O. (1936). Truth by convention. In O. H. Lee (Ed.), Philosophical essays for Alfred North Whitehead (pp. 90–124). New York: Longmans. (Reprinted in Benacerraf and Putnam 1983, 329–354).Google Scholar
  10. Quine, W. V. O. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. Philosophical Review, 60, 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Waismann, F. (1945). Verifiability. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 19, 119–150. (Reprinted in Logic and language, A. Flew (Ed.) pp. 117–144, 1968, Oxford: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
  12. Waismann, F. (1949). Analytic-synthetic I. Analysis, 10, 25–40.Google Scholar
  13. Waismann, F. (1950). Analytic-synthetic II. Analysis, 11, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Waismann, F. (1951a). Analytic-synthetic III. Analysis, 11, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Waismann, F. (1951b). Analytic-synthetic IV. Analysis, 11, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Waismann, F. (1952). Analytic-synthetic V. Analysis, 13, 1–14.Google Scholar
  17. Waismann, F. (1953). Analytic-synthetic VI. Analysis, 13, 73–89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations