Carnap on Linguistic Framework (Part 2)

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?

Carnap on Linguistic Framework (Part 1)

I. Introduction

The Vienna Circle, headed by Moritz Schlick, promulgated a set of doctrines called logical empiricism or logical positivism. This doctrine becomes the point of departure for most subsequent developments in the philosophy of science. Aside from this, the Vienna Circle rejects traditional metaphysics on the grounds that the data being discussed is not, by nature, empirical or sense-experience. Instead the movement accepts logicism, i.e. a theory that mathematics is logical, and focus on the sharp distinction between analytic and synthetic truths.

            Rudolf Carnap, a prominent member of the movement, is known to be anti-metaphysical and empiricist. He appears to be eliminating philosophical problems and debates especially on metaphysical problems and debates like the Platonists and the Nominalists did. He treats the subject matter as pseudo-problems and pseudo-debates. But he instead is trying to formulate philosophical doctrines through the use of linguistic conventionalism where there is a sharp distinction between internal questions and external questions instead of analytic and synthetic truths. This is the content of his seminal work Empiricism, Ontology and Semantics.

            The aim of this paper is first the exposition of Carnap’s thought on the necessity of language and logic in the formulation of authentic knowledge. Both of them are inseparable. In language’s existence, the role of logic is indispensable. The next part of the paper is the exposition on the internal questions and external questions. These two questions will help us determine which question is right and appropriate as the perspective in dealing with particular language. Carnap has put premium on the internal questions to yield a verifiable result according to the doctrine of the movement. The third part is the exposition of the two kinds of linguistic framework – logical and factual. Here is where the explication of logic is dealt with as the method and syntactical rules of each framework. The last part of the paper will be the evaluation why the idea of Carnap, in one way or another, has failed, with special mention of Ayer, Kant, Frege and Quine.

II. Language and Logic

The importance of language and logic has come about in his Principle of Tolerance. Language and logic play a constitutive role in knowledge. Thus any kind of knowledge is dependent on the choice of language and methods to be employed.

Language

Since Carnap is a member of the Vienna Circle, their fundamental doctrine is really anti-metaphysical and empiricist, holding that knowledge is based on sense-experience. Thus the kind of language they speak is no other than what is empirical. With this concern, Carnap has used the analogy of a game where four people are involved. If the three plans to play the same game while the other is not, then the four of them do not understand each other on what particular games they are interested. Thus there is no one single language that exists but of different kinds.

Logic

Logic, as explicated in his Logical Syntax of Language, refers to the rules. In every language chosen lays some rules to be followed whether it is right or wrong. When matters of choosing which language to use, Carnap says that one cannot determine with what is right and what is wrong. For him, the rules in every language serve as neutral court of appeal where everyone is treated fairly and equally. 

       Thus language and logic must go together. If a certain language has no logic, then there is no knowledge too. The kind of language and logic Carnap is referring here will be discussed on the third part of this paper.

Art: Moral or A-moral

The clearest picture of art, as many understand it, is those paintings hanging on the walls in the houses, halls, auditoriums, etc. They are placed in those areas where people’s attention is caught. But only few appreciate art, or maybe they never know what art is. What does art consist is the right approach that ordinary folks can better grasp the idea.

Objective and Subjective Judgments

No single individual has the same taste when ask to give judgment on a piece of art work in front of them. But two most common sources from which their individual judgments derive. First is the objective judgment, and this means the appearance of the art work is somehow almost perfect – how the artist set in place the materials that create his masterpiece like the exact mixing of different combination of ink colors and the neatness of drawing. Second is the subjective judgment where the observer finds the meaning of the art work being conveyed, its relevance to the development of the person and the society as a whole. In other words, art itself speaks to any individual who happens to discover its meanings.

Truth of Art

The objective approach tells us what that piece of art means. And there are two kinds – the concrete and the abstract. The concrete piece of art, without much human effort, reveals its meaning and value by using our five senses. But the abstract piece of art requires effort from our intelligence. It needs our focus and concentration in arranging art-like puzzle. The subjective approach becomes the venue of understanding what does the artist wants to say deeply, for art is one of the means of expressing one’s self and world view. It is the best way of doing critical analysis of the artist’s world, his life-experience and aspirations for us. These two approaches complement each other to bring out its truth.

Truth-value of Art

If there is one thing in common on why do art exist is this: artists want to spread the message and light the world its truth-value. What does it mean by truth-value? I am sure that the truth-value is something what artists believe as essentials to our existence. Theodor Adorno speaks well about the critical role of art, and showcases that art has truth-content. This truth-content of art is not there to be displayed and be enjoyed by the viewer saying ‘This is art!’ But this truth-content is dynamic. It has the capacity to transform our thinking, our relationship, our existence, and our world for the better. Of course, the opposite is also true that art can transform everything for the worse.

Art and Morality

The truth-content of art has the power of transformation either for the better or for the worse. This is the basis of consideration when to include or not the piece of art for public display and for public viewing. In the case of Cruz’s art, both views – objective and subjective – speak of the transformation for the worse. His art is a combination of religious objects, treated as sacred by its adherents, and sex objects like contraceptives, considered as evil taught by the Church. What is in store is that there is no gap between art and morality.

Thinking of art as manifestation of beautiful is superficial. Art does not exist for beauty’s sake, for beauty has its boundaries and not limitless as many think that way. The essence of beauty effects harmony, a transformation for the better. And if every artist has the sense of this essence, the road to building a better society is not far from possibility. Art is not beyond morality but always abound within it.

Who is a philosopher?

If one wants to become a nurse, he must enrol himself in nursing course. If one wants to be a teacher, he must take up the course of education. This procedure is the same with other courses one desires. And in becoming a philosopher, taking up that discipline or not may not be necessary.

Philosophy course is a professional course. But when one has the chance to look into the history of philosophy, numerous philosophers were not graduates in such course, and their followers have made their names great. What makes them as such?

Philosophers of old did not aspire to make their names great. It was their disciples and students adhere to their ideas. They have discovered that their ideas provide satisfactions to their personal and social queries. We have such examples like Plato who make his teacher Socrates known by making him one of the characters in his writings or Immanuel Kant’s admiration to seek more metaphysical principle by the thoughts of David Hume.

Two things, as I see it, common from these thinkers. First, it is their quest for answers to the very fundamental questions that every ordinary human being encounters. These questions have kept on appearing in their minds. And each has their own styles in approaching those questions. Thus no two thinkers have the same answers. And the second thing is their sense of awe and wonder on why things around them seem to be acting in particular and strange ways. In short, they try to explain the phenomena by using their thinking skills.

Each person is gifted with rationality. And from this inherent gift, he can impregnate unique ideas. There are as many ideas as there are many thinkers trying to answer those questions. But sad to say, no amount of brilliant ideas or simple as it may, has ever met with satisfaction. We are tantamount to say that the fundamental and philosophical questions are enveloped with the sense of mystery. And satisfaction comes only when thinkers are able to unveil that sense of mystery that surrounds them, and point to thoughts beyond appearance and sense impression. And, I believe, this is the secret on becoming a philosopher.

The Urstoff

What makes later generation of thinkers in the ancient Greeks, after Homer and Hesiod, philosophers? These men revolutionize the conventional mentality of the culture at that time, establishing solid arguments from their rational reflections of the world in broadest term. And the quest for answers to the question of urstoff has taken its toll.

The question about urstoff starts from man’s day-to-day observation of reality. The basic form of this is the fact of change, from existence to decay, young to old, life and death. If reality happens that way, there must be a point of origin of all things as they speculate. And this point of origin is somehow permanent, where the emanation of all things coming forth.

The point of origin is at the same time the point of unity. This is the idea of One and the Many made popular by Norris Clarke as the title of his existential metaphysics book. The philosophical questions that led to the discovery of urstoff is this: What is the basic stuff of everything? Does it imply the materiality of all things?

To question about the essence of the urstoff is not the preoccupation of the early thinkers. There was no dichotomy yet in their mind between what is of spirit and of matter. And when Thales answers that it is water,  Anaximenes air, and Heraclitus fire as the ultimate element, they posited a material unity.

Their basic stuffs are very elementary, but it has to be thought of as extraordinary, at least during their times, when their civilization was characterized as living under the domination of the divine, where the answers to all human queries were coming from the supernatural beings – of gods and goddesses. It is extraordinary because they provide human answers as a product of their sense of awe and wonder.

Source: Copleston, Frederick, S.J. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 1 Greece and Rome

On Arête and Hubris

The Greeks in the ancient period have many characteristics, and one of them is their “Will to Power.” This will to power once interpreted as ‘might is right theory’ that results to domination over the weak, and their subjection to the powerful. Later, Friedrich Nietzche adopted the ‘will to power’ idea in his understanding of man, as a means or capacity to withstand amidst the reality of ugliness and sufferings of life.

The concept of the ‘will to power’ is not free of criticisms from the philosophers at that time. Plato, for instance, speaks against it when people think about domination that leads to destruction. This may be taken from the vantage view of politics. But what about putting the concept in psychological viewpoint? In their culture and character, it shows the two sides of the ‘will to power.’

The first is the exercise of moderation, and it is sometimes called arête, which means the ability to achieve success. The second is the side of excess. It is sometimes called hubris, which means that one is possessed the unbridled lust for self-assertion.

What is laudable between the two for some of the Greeks is the arête, because there is the exercise of temperance and self-discipline as human virtues. It appears in many of the ancient art works the picture of Apollo symbolizing arête, as opposed to Dionysius the Elder and the Younger, the symbols of hubris, with their limitless and lust for self-assertion. They were both tyrants of Syracuse of Italy around 4^th to 3^rd century BC.

The Greeks later created the Olympian dream-world as police, watching over the people to observe arête than hubris. This means that when one is being caught of transgressing his limit or going beyond moderation, the gods would get wrath over him.

Sources: Copleston, Frederick, S.J. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 1 Greece and Rome, and Microsoft Student 2008