By Roger Bishop Jones for The City of Eternal Truth
What is the point of my paper Grice on Vacuous Names, and how does it bear upon "The City of Eternal Truth".
Well, the key to Eternal Truth, rather than the usual philosophical speculative froth, is in analytic method.
The way we approach The City is through a dialogue between Carnap* and Grice*, in which by a constructive comparative analysis the philosophies of the two men evolve toward an effective analytic method.
This paper is one element of this process.
After an initial flurry in constructing the formal model (called System C) which one might think of as a hybrid between a formal model of and a dialectical response to system Q, I will use this as an example for the description and discussion of analytic methods. I decided to use the term "X-Methods" as a label for the position I am now developing on a pluralistic analytic method (this is the kind of thing which Carnap* might have come up with).
The exposition will be split across two chapters of a multi-volume work of formal philosophy (at present called "analyses of analysis") of which the material on Grice's system Q will form a chapter.
An earlier chapter in the work is intended to provide a discussion of the methods employed in the book, and I hope to progress that chapter and make clear in "Grice on Vacuous Names" how that chapter exemplifies the methods.
These methods are Carnap*'s approach to Eternal Truth.
Roger Jones
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Excellent. Yes. I have been examining your document very closely, and thank you for providing the hyperlink above.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the way you quote from Church (Review of Symbolic Logic) and the way you find a way to re-write Grice's subscript devices in terms of the subscripted letters (e.g. 'p' becomes 'Pegasus').
---
I also enjoyed the way you keep the formation and more importantly the variants of the introduction and elimination rules of Grice's System G --, e.g. Reductio ad absurdum and Doble Negation as, respectively, introduction and elimination for negation.
It is all so much neater than Grice's own presentation that it can't fail to elucidate!
----
I am aware that for most people it will be just as if not more indescipherable in its present state, and I would like to use it to progress the clarification of the methods, and try to make them a little less unintelligible than they are.
ReplyDeleteBy "it" there, I meant "System C" (just as indescipherable as System Q).
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty decipherable. I would assume that Grice's System Q is just based on Mates -- and one (I) may need to know what authors Mates is relying on. As I recall, Mates is not the one to provide any historical notes on stuff -- unlike Quine who would credit, however, briefly, some of his borrowings. So we'll see. Grice must have seen that it was all the common fare for the Logic student at UC/Berkeley -- and thus he did not feel motivated to provide justifications of a clearer nature. Plus, he relies on Mates explicitly.
ReplyDelete