Carnap's so-called 'syntactic' method in the Logical Synt... — Carmelics

History Edit See Inverse

Carnap's so-called 'syntactic' method in the Logical Syntax actually includes much of what should properly be called semantics

Philosophy of Language

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

2 reasons against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

?

1.Languages I and II are interpreted languages, not formal languages in the modern sense
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.While the syntactic method requires disregarding interpretations, a fixed interpretation implicitly remains in place throughout
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Carnap himself later recognized that his 'syntax' included much of what he would later call 'semantics'
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

2 perspectives

Reason against 1 of 2

?

1.Carnap's c-terms are defined purely by derivability relations within a calculus, requiring no reference to truth in a model or domain of objects.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.The absence of a Tarskian satisfaction relation—not the presence of intended interpretation—is the principled criterion distinguishing syntax from semantics.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Therefore, that Languages I and II have intended readings does not entail their governing metalanguage employs genuinely semantic concepts in the post-Tarskian sense.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reason against 2 of 2

?

Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Strongest counterpoint

Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.