The Objectivity of Analyticity: Quine's Two Dogmas Argument Revisited

Research Article
Open access

The Objectivity of Analyticity: Quine's Two Dogmas Argument Revisited

Luyang Sun 1*
  • 1 Sorbonne University    
  • *corresponding author luyang.sun@sorbonne.universite.fr
Published on 14 September 2023 | https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/9/20230111
LNEP Vol.9
ISSN (Print): 2753-7056
ISSN (Online): 2753-7048
ISBN (Print): 978-1-915371-99-7
ISBN (Online): 978-1-83558-000-4

Abstract

From a classical view, analyticity entails objectivity, as opposed to syntheticity. With "Two Dogmas" and other essays, the traditional analytical aprioricity is dead, various attempts for seeking recourse to conventions also reveal to be insufficient to account for the leak from subjective experiences about the external world and objective knowledge reserved in a law-governed sphere. Although Quine cast doubt on a traditional analytic-synthetic distinction and a priori truth obtained by virtue of meaning and disapproved of Carnap's logical empiricism, i.e., logical truth in the sense of conventions that defined by linguistic structrue, it is clear that he has never refused the possibility of seeking a common picture of our external world, a kind of objectivity neither based on a transcendental Kantian approach of a priori intuition, nor the one that relies on a logical framework and certain structural properties that are isomorphic between private experiences. Quine opposed these views mainly by providing a holistic approach which states that confirmation is holistic where interdeterminancy sets the accountability of every single given expression. However, this claim eventually resuscitates the question of the relation between objectivity and the questioned analyticity, i.e. truth by virtue of meaning. This essay argues that in fact, a new kind of objectivity has emerged with the Quinean approach, namely the analytical objectivity.

Keywords:

analyticity, objectivity, Quine, holistic view

Sun,L. (2023). The Objectivity of Analyticity: Quine's Two Dogmas Argument Revisited. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,9,136-141.
Export citation

References

[1]. Quine, W. V., In praise of observational sentences: The Journal of Philosophy Vol. 90, No. 3 (1993), pp. 107-116.

[2]. Quine, W. V. (1995). From Stimulus to Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[3]. Quine, W. V. (1969). Epistemology Naturalized. In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.

[4]. Quine, W.V. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge: MIT Press.

[5]. Ayer, A. J., Whiteley, C. H., & Black, M. (1936). Truth by Convention: A Symposium by A. J. Ayer, C. H. Whiteley, M. Black. Analysis, 4(2/3), 17–32. Also see in Quine, W. V. 1936: Truth by Convention.

[6]. Gary Kemp (2018). Quine and the Kantian Problem of Objectivity. Science and Sensibilia by W. V. Quine pp 91–114.

[7]. Carnap R. (1967). The Logical Structure of the World. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES.

[8]. Carnap R. (1964). Logische Syntax der Sprache, Vienne : Springer, trad. anglaise 1937 The Logical Syntax of Language, Londres : Routledge & Kegan Paul.

[9]. Carnap R. (1964). Logische Syntax der Sprache, Vienne : Springer, trad. anglaise 1937 The Logical Syntax of Language, Londres : Routledge & Kegan Paul.

[10]. Quine, W. V. (1974). The Roots of Reference. La Salle, IL: Open Court.

[11]. Roberta B. “The Interpretation of Necessity and the Necessity of Interpretation.” The Journal of Philosophy 101, no. 12 (2004): 609–38.

[12]. Boghossian P. A., Analyticity Reconsidered. Noûs , Sep., 1996, Vol. 30, No. 3 (1996), pp. 360-391.

Cite this article

Sun,L. (2023). The Objectivity of Analyticity: Quine's Two Dogmas Argument Revisited. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,9,136-141.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.

Disclaimer/Publisher's Note

The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

About volume

Volume title: Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Psychology and Humanity Studies

ISBN：978-1-915371-99-7(Print) / 978-1-83558-000-4(Online)
Editor：Faisalabad Matilde Lafuente-Lechuga, Muhammad Idrees
Conference website: https://www.icsphs.org/
Conference date: 24 April 2023
Series: Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media
Volume number: Vol.9
ISSN：2753-7048(Print) / 2753-7056(Online)

© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See Open access policy for details).

References

[1]. Quine, W. V., In praise of observational sentences: The Journal of Philosophy Vol. 90, No. 3 (1993), pp. 107-116.

[2]. Quine, W. V. (1995). From Stimulus to Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[3]. Quine, W. V. (1969). Epistemology Naturalized. In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.

[4]. Quine, W.V. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge: MIT Press.

[5]. Ayer, A. J., Whiteley, C. H., & Black, M. (1936). Truth by Convention: A Symposium by A. J. Ayer, C. H. Whiteley, M. Black. Analysis, 4(2/3), 17–32. Also see in Quine, W. V. 1936: Truth by Convention.

[6]. Gary Kemp (2018). Quine and the Kantian Problem of Objectivity. Science and Sensibilia by W. V. Quine pp 91–114.

[7]. Carnap R. (1967). The Logical Structure of the World. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES.

[8]. Carnap R. (1964). Logische Syntax der Sprache, Vienne : Springer, trad. anglaise 1937 The Logical Syntax of Language, Londres : Routledge & Kegan Paul.

[9]. Carnap R. (1964). Logische Syntax der Sprache, Vienne : Springer, trad. anglaise 1937 The Logical Syntax of Language, Londres : Routledge & Kegan Paul.

[10]. Quine, W. V. (1974). The Roots of Reference. La Salle, IL: Open Court.

[11]. Roberta B. “The Interpretation of Necessity and the Necessity of Interpretation.” The Journal of Philosophy 101, no. 12 (2004): 609–38.

[12]. Boghossian P. A., Analyticity Reconsidered. Noûs , Sep., 1996, Vol. 30, No. 3 (1996), pp. 360-391.

For authors
Guide for authors Policies for authors Aims and scope Subscription Open access policy
For editors
Policies for editors Editorial board
For reviewers
Policies for reviewers Privacy policy

Cookies are used by this site.
Copyright © 2024 EWA Publishing, its licensors, and contributors. All rights reserved, including text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.