Critique paper - HaagsehonderdNl Critique paper - HaagsehonderdNl

Critique paper

Critique paper

Please forward this error screen to sharedip-10718056153. This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor’s personal feelings about a topic. Two Dogmas of Empiricism» is a paper by analytic philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine published in 1951. Critique paper first four focus on analyticity, the last two on reductionism.

There, Quine turns the focus to the logical positivists’ theory of meaning. He also presents his own holistic theory of meaning. Most of Quine’s argument against analyticity in the first four sections is focused on showing that different explanations of analyticity are circular. The main purpose is to show that no satisfactory explanation of analyticity has been given. Quine begins by making a distinction between two different classes of analytic statements.

No unmarried man is married A sentence with that form is true independent of the interpretation of «man» and «married», so long as the logical particles «no», «un-» and «is» have their ordinary English meaning. It is the second class of statements that lack characterization according to Quine. The notion of the second form of analyticity leans on the notion of synonymy, which Quine believes is in as much need of clarification as analyticity. How do we reduce sentences from the second class to a sentence of the first class? No bachelor is married» can be turned into «No unmarried man is married» because «bachelor» is defined as «unmarried man». But, Quine asks: how do we find out that «bachelor» is defined as «unmarried man»? A second suggestion Quine considers is an explanation of synonymy in terms of interchangeability.

Bachelor» has fewer than ten letters. Obviously «bachelor» and «unmarried man» are not interchangeable in that sentence. To exclude that example and some other obvious counterexamples, such as poetic quality, Quine introduces the notion of cognitive synonymy. But does interchangeability hold as an explanation of cognitive synonymy? Necessarily all and only creatures with a heart are creatures with kidneys.

Presuming that ‘creature with a heart’ and ‘creature with kidneys’ have the same extension, they will be interchangeable salva veritate. It seems that the only way to assert the synonymy is by supposing that the terms ‘bachelor’ and ‘unmarried man’ are synonymous and that the sentence «All and only all bachelors are unmarried men» is analytic. But for salva veritate to hold as a definition of something more than extensional agreement, i. However, such a condition to understand synonymy is not enough so we not only argue that the terms should be interchangeable, but necessarily so.