File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Truth in philosophy: a conceptual engineering approach

TitleTruth in philosophy: a conceptual engineering approach
Authors
KeywordsConceptual engineering
Rudolf Carnap
Truth
Issue Date16-Mar-2024
Citation
Asian Journal of Philosophy, 2024, v. 3, n. 1 How to Cite?
AbstractThe focus of this paper will be to examine the implications that a “practical” approach to conceptual engineering might have for the “traditional” conception of philosophy as uncovering truths about phenomena of philosophical interest. In doing so, I will be building on the ideas of a figure that many take to be the first major philosopher to write on conceptual engineering: Rudolf Carnap. Though the current wave of interest in conceptual engineering goes back less than a decade, many conceptual engineers have found precedent for their views in Carnap’s characterization of what he called “explication.” Interestingly, however, not nearly as much attention has been paid to another Carnapian thesis which seems to me to have deep relevance to methodological questions about conceptual engineering. I have in mind here the distinction between internal and external questions proposed in “Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology” (1950b) and the accompanying claim that external questions lack cognitive content and can be cogently approached only as a matter of pragmatic decision-making. This is the aspect of Carnap’s views upon which I propose to build. I'll first make the case that there is a suggestive similarity between Carnap’s claim that external questions are matters of pragmatic choice and the practical conceptual engineer’s claim that engineering success should be characterized in terms of suitability to a function or purpose. After that, I'll look at potential worries about the Carnapian distinction—including, e.g., the concern that it relies on the analytic/synthetic distinction. Finally, I will propose a somewhat modified and expanded version of the distinction and examine its consequences for the thesis that philosophy aims at discovering truths about phenomena of philosophical interest.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/348265
ISSN

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNado, Jennifer-
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-08T00:31:19Z-
dc.date.available2024-10-08T00:31:19Z-
dc.date.issued2024-03-16-
dc.identifier.citationAsian Journal of Philosophy, 2024, v. 3, n. 1-
dc.identifier.issn2731-4642-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/348265-
dc.description.abstractThe focus of this paper will be to examine the implications that a “practical” approach to conceptual engineering might have for the “traditional” conception of philosophy as uncovering truths about phenomena of philosophical interest. In doing so, I will be building on the ideas of a figure that many take to be the first major philosopher to write on conceptual engineering: Rudolf Carnap. Though the current wave of interest in conceptual engineering goes back less than a decade, many conceptual engineers have found precedent for their views in Carnap’s characterization of what he called “explication.” Interestingly, however, not nearly as much attention has been paid to another Carnapian thesis which seems to me to have deep relevance to methodological questions about conceptual engineering. I have in mind here the distinction between internal and external questions proposed in “Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology” (1950b) and the accompanying claim that external questions lack cognitive content and can be cogently approached only as a matter of pragmatic decision-making. This is the aspect of Carnap’s views upon which I propose to build. I'll first make the case that there is a suggestive similarity between Carnap’s claim that external questions are matters of pragmatic choice and the practical conceptual engineer’s claim that engineering success should be characterized in terms of suitability to a function or purpose. After that, I'll look at potential worries about the Carnapian distinction—including, e.g., the concern that it relies on the analytic/synthetic distinction. Finally, I will propose a somewhat modified and expanded version of the distinction and examine its consequences for the thesis that philosophy aims at discovering truths about phenomena of philosophical interest.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofAsian Journal of Philosophy-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectConceptual engineering-
dc.subjectRudolf Carnap-
dc.subjectTruth-
dc.titleTruth in philosophy: a conceptual engineering approach-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s44204-024-00151-0-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85187937962-
dc.identifier.volume3-
dc.identifier.issue1-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats