III. Questions
In order to explicate more on the kind of language, first is the need to understand the two questions being said to draw out the interest with verified answers. After this junction, we will return to the context of what is language all about in the mind of Carnap.
Carnap speaks of two kinds of questions – either internal or external. This is crucial in getting into deeper clarification of linguistic framework. To make the distinction of the two simple, let me use the above example about the game like playing cards and the four friends. If one of them feels like not playing card, instead of basketball, then he could not be judged whether he is wise and skilled in playing cards. If he does, then judgment can be carried out. The first instance is a clear indication that the three are in the same boat, sharing the same language, while the second is not.
A. Internal Questions
Internal questions are matters that involved the verification whether it is right or wrong, as when the three of them shared the same interest of playing the game. In the internal question, to carry out the judgment if he is good in playing cards or not, if he is qualified to go the game or not, set of rules has to be employed as standard of the game. Thus we see in the demonstration that language and logic go together.
B. External Questions
External questions are matters that involved no verification of right and wrong. The situation is very lucid that not all of them share the same interest. No single language has been figured out. But if the person who is not one with the group’s interest, and begin to judge that playing card is not a good game to play instead of basketball, then certainly, the question of the rules and its language is out of the picture.
What is the criterion in choosing language? Carnap is very practical in his answer to the question. One has to make a choice. The choice of language has to be based on pragmatic consideration. Since Carnap is anti-metaphysical and empirical, no other language could be allowed than this.
IV. Linguistic Framework
What does it mean by language for Carnap? Remember that in every language, logic will always be its partner. Once language is being chosen, then that language has to be understood within a framework with set of rules called logic. If language is being compared by another language, it is considered as external question with the absence of being judged as right or wrong. But our concerned framework here could be welcomed and treated with only internal questions.
A. Types of Framework
Framework can be defined more or less that contains vocabulary with set of rules and conventions in governing the use of such vocabulary (Alexander Miller). What are these vocabulary and set of rules and conventions for? There are two frameworks given by Miller in his book Philosophy of Language to explain what does Carnap mean by it, and they are logical framework and factual framework.
Logical Framework
The logical framework contains vocabulary such as numerals, variables, general terms and various conventions. The given example of internal question to this particular framework is, “Is 5 a prime number?” The given question could be judged according to the rules of language with its vocabulary. 5 is indeed a numeral, but this 5 could be replaced with a variable like X. The general term refers to the predicate part of the question – ‘is a prime number,’ but this general term could be judged with the various conventions like “5 is a prime number” is true if X can be replaced by 5.
Factual Framework
The factual framework has the same content as that of logical like mass terms, general terms, and linguistic conventions. The given question here is, “Is lead soluble?” The term lead is the mass terms, and soluble is the general term. Now, the linguistic convention in this question is really to test whether lead is indeed soluble by dissolving that element with some liquid solution. Then, after the experiment, the question could be judged if it is true or false.
B. Logical and Factual differences
As there are two types of frameworks that judges either the question is true or false verification, there are also two kinds of answers that yields.
The first framework is called logical because the nature of the answer is formulated a priori. The 5 in ‘5 is a prime number’ is coming from the subject of the sentence such that between 4 and 6, there is a prime number called 5. The answer to the internal question is called analytic. The second framework is called factual because there is, aside the available application of relevant convention, an appeal to be made to empirical evidence and observation. Like the question “Is lead soluble?” it has to undergo a process, an experiment in the laboratory, to prove whether lead is soluble or not. In short, the answer to the internal question depends on a posteriori matter.
A short scheme can be made out of the above. A linguistic framework that is logical admits an analytic answers, while factual framework admits of non-analytic answers or a posteriori answers. Logical framework is literally significant because the result emanates from the given subject in the proposition, while the factual framework is not literally significant because its result has to be verified empirically, like dissolving the lead with special solution to prove if it is indeed soluble or not.
C. Analytic and Synthetic Categories
The above kinds of framework have shown from where it emanates its respective result – logical framework is a priori and factual framework is a posteriori. These frameworks have been understood by other philosophers as another extension to the internal and external questions. What is it? Logical framework, since it answers to the question analytically, belongs to the province of internal questions; while factual framework, since it answers to the question synthetically, belongs to the province of external questions. Miller’s explanation is that this kind of understanding of Carnap’s thought is misleading. These two categories could not be separated from different frameworks, but these two has to be taken as one within the province of one particular framework chosen.
These two categories are the results coming from logical and factual frameworks. These truths are defined as: analytic truths are coming from the framework’s convention alone, while synthetic truths are those from the framework’s convention in the presence of empirical evidence. This is the character of the framework of Carnap’s being empiricist.
A question can be posed here. Since the logical framework is plausible because it yields answers analytically, how about the factual framework on the possibility of knowledge that does not depend on sense-experience? Is it possible?
