Abstract
In studying the conceptual problems connected with any logically or philosophically interesting term, one of the very first questions we encounter concerns the different grammatical constructions in which it normally occurs (insofar as there is a non-trivial difference in meaning between them). Some distinctions between such constructions have figured prominently in recent philosophical literature. A case in point is Ryle’s emphasis on the distinction between knowing that and knowing how, to which I shall soon return. However, in most cases surprisingly little systematic work has been done to clear up the precise relations between the different constructions and their relative priorities. For instance, even though there are a great many books and articles on the concept of goodness and on the meaning of the word ‘good’ it seems to me that the interrelations of the different grammatical constructions in which it can occur are but imperfectly understood. Some of the most acute discussions of the meaning of ‘good’, for example those by Paul Ziff in Semantic Analysis and by Jerrold J. Katz in Philosophy of Language, concentrate almost exclusively on the use of the word ‘good’ in the construction ‘a good X’1 These authors do not ask whether this is a basic and irreducible construction for the relevant logical and philosophical purposes, or whether it can be analyzed in terms of other uses of ‘good’, for instance, the one exemplified by ‘It is good that’. I suspect that the latter is more fundamental than the use in the form ‘a good X’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Paul Ziff, Semantic Analysis, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., 1960, especially the last chapter;
Jerrold J. Katz, Philosophy of Language, Harper & Row, New York, 1966, pp. 287–317.
See, e. g., Roderick M. Chisholm, Perceiving, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., 1957, p. 142;
David Armstrong, A Materialist Theory of Mind, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1967, p. 227.
Jaakko Hintikka, Models for Modalities: Selected Essays (Synthese Library), D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, 1969, pp. 87–111.
See W. V. Quine, From a Logical Point of View, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1953, especially essays 7 and 8;
Quine, The Ways of Paradox, Random House, New York, 1966, especially essays 13–15. An excellent discussion of Quine’s views is presented by Dagfinn Føllesdal in ‘Quine on Modality’, Synthese 19 (1968) 147–157. A detailed evualuation of Quine’s views and of their consequences is presented in Chapter 6 below.
See, e. g., W. G. Runciman, Plato’s Later Epistemology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1962;
R. M. Hare, ‘Plato and the Mathematicians’, in New Essays on Plato and Aristotle, R. Bambrough (ed.), Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1965, p. 23.
See Roderick M. Chisholm, ‘On Some Psychological Concepts and the “Logic” of Intentionality’, in Intentionality, Minds, and Perception, Hector-Neri Castaneda (ed.), Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 1967;
Chisholm, ‘Notes on the Logic of Believing’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 24 (1963–64), 195–201.
See, e. g., Peter F. Strawson, Individuals, Methuen, London, 1959. Cf. also Chapters 2 and 6 below.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1975 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hintikka, J. (1975). Rudolf Carnap, Logical Empiricist. In: Hintikka, J. (eds) Rudolf Carnap, Logical Empiricist. Synthese Library, vol 73. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1807-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1807-4_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-1809-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-1807-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive