نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

چکیده

هنوز نظریۀ کارنپ پیرامونِ وجودشناسی جان نگرفته بود که کواین به آن تاخت؛ و این، تاخت‌و‌تازی را میان دو فیلسوف برایِ بیش از نیم قرن موجب شده. هم‌چونان پرسش این است: حق با کدام یک بود/است؟ در مقالۀ پیشِ رو، با مرورِ نظریۀ کارنپ، نقدهایِ جسته‌و‌گریختۀ کواین را در سه عنوان به مواضعِ او روایت کرده‌ام. نشان داده‌ام که چگونه نظریۀ کارنپ را می‌توان از این سه نقد مبرا داشت. پس، با لحاظ کردنِ این‌که کواین موضعِ اختلاف را اشتباه تشخیص داده، و نه اختلافِ موضع را، به داوری میانِ دو فیلسوف نشسته، توضیح داده‌ام اگرچه کارنپ و کواین، هر دو، به نسبیتِ وجود قائل‌اند، آن-یک به’نسبیتِ عام‘ باور دارد و این‌یک، به ’نسبیتِ خاص‘. از منظری دیگر، اگرچه دو فیلسوف در وجودشناسی شک‌گرا هستند، آن‌یک ’شک‌گرایِ مرتبۀ دوم‘ است و این‌یک، ’شک‌گرایِ مرتبۀ نخست‘. به عبارتِ دیگر، نشان داده‌ام که چگونه در روی‌کردِ وجود‌شناختیِ دو فیلسوف "عاملِ توافق، عاملِ تخالف است". در میانِ این پیچیدگی‌ها، نتیجه گرفته‌ام که هر داوری یک‌سویه، بر موافقت یا مخالفتِ صرف، نادرست خواهد بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Carnap and Quine, Confrontation in Metaontology

نویسنده [English]

  • Mohammad Hosein Esfandiari

Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Carnap’s view on ontology had not yet rallied that Quine attacked it; and this has caused a dispute between two philosophers for more than half a century. The question remains: which one was/is right? In this article after reviewing Carnap’s view, I have recounted Quine’s critiques, here and there, to his stands under three titles. It is shown how Carnap’s view can be justified from these three critiques. Then, after considering that Quine has identified the position of the difference incorrectly, but not the different position, I have explained, In the midst of arbitration between two philosophers, although Carnap and Quine, both, do maintain ontological relativity, the former believes in ‘general relativity’, and the latter in ‘special relativity’. From another point of view, although two philosopher do maintain ontological skepticism, the former is ‘second level skeptic’, and the latter is ‘first level skeptic’. In the other words. I have shown how in ontological approach of two philosophers “the reason for the agreement is the same for disagreement”. Among these complexities the conclusion is taken that any unilateral arbitration, on strict agreement or disagreement, will be wrong.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Carnap
  • Quine
  • metaontology
  • ontological skepticism
  • ontological relativity
اسفندیاری، محمدحسین (1398)، «پارادوکسِ کارنپ و شک‌گرایی مرتبۀ دوم وجود‌شناختی»، متافیزیک، س ۱۱، ش 27.
 
Alspector-Kelly, M. (2001), “On Quine, on Carnap, on Ontology”, Philosophical Studies, vol. 102.
Ayer, Alfred Jules (1984), Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, New York: Vintage Books.
Berge, William H. (1995), “Carnap and Translational Indeterminacy”, Synthese. vol. 105.
Bird, Graham H. (2003), “Carnap’s Internal and External Question”, in: Language, Truth and Knowledge, Thomas Bonk (ed.), Springer.
Carnap, Rudolf (1934/1937), Logical Syntax of Language, trans. Amethe Smeaton, London: Kegan Paul.
Carnap, Rudolf (1935), Philosophy and Logical Syntax. London: Kegan Paul.
Carnap, Rodulf (1950), “Empiricism, Semantic and Ontology”. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4, Reprinted with Minor Changes in: Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic, (1956). Enlarged Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Page references are to the reprint.)
Carnap, Rodulf (1963), “Intellectual Autobiography”, in: The Philosophy of Rodulf Carnap, Paul Arthur Schipp (ed.), La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.
Chalmers, D. (2009), ‘‘Ontological Anti-Realism’’, in: Metametaphysics, Chalmers, D., Manley D., and R. Wasserman (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.
Creath, Richard (2012), “Before Explication”, in: Carnap’s Ideal of Explication and Naturalism, Wagner, Pierre (ed), London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Frost-Arnold, Gregg, (2013), Carnap, Tarski, and Quine at Harvard: Conversations on Logic, Mathematics, and Science, Chicago and La Salle: Open Court.
Price, Huw (2009), “Metaphysics after Carnap: The Ghost Who Walks?” in: Metametaphysics, Chalmers, D., Manley D., and R. Wasserman (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.
Putnam, Hilary (2004), Ethics without Ontology, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Creath, R. (1990), “The Quine-Carnap Correspondence”, in: Dear Carnap, Dear Van, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (1947a), “On Universals”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol: 12, no. 3.
Quine, W. V. O. and N. Goodman (1947b), “Steps toward a Constructive Nominalism”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol: 12, no. 4.
Quine, W. V. O. (1948), “On What There Is”, in: From a Logical Point of View, (1953), New York: Harper& Row.
Quine, W. V. O. (1951a), ‘‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’’, in: From a Logical Point of View, (1953), New York: Harper& Row.
Quine, W. V. O. (1951b), “On Carnap’s View on Ontology”, in: Philisophical Studies, Herbert Feigl and Wilfrid Sellars (eds.).
Quine, W. V. O. (1954), “Carnap and Logical Truth”, in: The Philosophy of Rodulf Carnap, (1963), Paul Arthur Schipp (ed.), La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.
Quine, W. V. O. (1960), Word and Object, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (1969a), “Ontological Relativity”, in: Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York: Columbia University Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (1969b), “Existence and Quantification”, in: Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York: Columbia University Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (1981a), “Things and Their Place in Theories”, in: Theories and Things, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (1981b), “Five Milestones of Empiricism”, in: Theories and Things, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (1998), “Autobiography of W. V. Quine”, in: The Philosophy of W. V. Quine, Paul Arthur Schipp (ed.), Second Edition. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.
Tarski, Alfred (1956), “The Establishment of Scientific Semantics”, in: Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, J. H. Woodger (tran.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Verhaegh, Sander (2017a), “Quine on the Nature of Naturalism”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol: 55, Issue: 1.
Verhaegh, Sander (2017b), “Blurring Boundaries: Carnap, Quine, and the Internal–External Distinction”, Erkenntnis, vol. 82, no. 4.
Yablo, Stephen (1998), “Does Ontology Rest on a Mistake?”, Aristotelian Society Supplementary, vol. 72, no. 1.