Carnap’s seminal ‘Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology’ makes important use of the notion of a framework and the related distinction between internal and external questions. But what exactly is a framework? And what role does the internal/external distinction play in Carnap’s metaontology? In an influential series of papers, Matti Eklund has recently defended a bracingly straightforward interpretation: A Carnapian framework, Eklund says, is just a natural language. To ask an internal question, then, is just to ask a question in, say, English. (...) To try to ask an external question is to try, absurdly, to ask a question in no language at all. Finding that so trivial an I/e distinction can’t help to explain Carnap’s deflationary metaontology, Eklund is led to attribute to Carnap a view he calls ontological pluralism. In this paper, I show that Eklund misreads Carnap, and I argue that this misreading obscures fundamental features of Carnap’s philosophy. I then defend an account of frameworks as what Carnap called semantical systems, and I place this account in the context of Carnap’s philosophical program of explication. Finally, I discuss the role that frameworks and the I/e distinction play in ESO, showing that ESO provides no reason to attribute the doctrine of ontological pluralism to Carnap. (shrink)

Published originally as “Loogisen kielentutkimuksen näköaloja”, Ajatus 19,, pp. 81–96, the following piece by Jaakko Hintikka is the first essay he published in his mother tongue of Finnish. It is seen to provide both a state-of-the-art review of current topics emerging in the philosophy of language in the mid-1950, as well as outlines of Hintikka’s own evaluation of major theses of that era, in particular those of Quine’s and Wittgenstein’s concerning language use. Hintikka evaluates contributions that the logical study of (...) language use can make to the solving of philosophical questions. Published in 1956 in Ajatus: The Yearbook of the Philosophical Society of Finland, Hintikka’s essay served to introduce these topical issues to the Finnish-speaking audience soon after the original works had appeared in print. It also puts the theses into the perspectives of Hintikka’s own fledgling logical philosophy. One can see the germs of game-theoretical semantics is his comments on Wittgenstein’s notion of a language-game, and his remarks on general habits of action anticipate the importance of strategic rules in Hintikka’s mature, inquiry-led and ‘action-first’ epistemology. This is manifest in Hintikka’s characteristic approach to the methodology of philosophy of science and mathematics as an attempt to understand the nature of scientific and mathematical practices and operations through the logical analysis of their central concepts. Topics indicated below thus became the hallmarks of Hintikka’s next sixty years of work, which saw the development of a range of logical methods by which language and its use can be studied, and in particular in such a way that progress can be made in solving problems of genuinely philosophical nature that one encounters across various fields of science. This piece was very briefly summarized in English in 1963 by Arto Salomaa, 1963, p. 165), and it is translated from the original Finnish by Jukka Nikulainen and Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. [A.-V. P, J. N.]. (shrink)

The paper reconstructs three main stages in the development of Carnap’s approach to language in the years 1931 – 1947. It starts with Carnap’s approach to metalogic in his Viennese Zirkelprotokolle and his Logische Syntax der Sprache from the point of view of one-level approach to the relation between metalanguage and its object-language. It then analyzes Tarski’s turn to semantics in his paper presented at the Paris conference in September 1935, as well as the implications of his view for Carnap’s (...) approach to semantics from 1935 until 1943. Finally, it analyzes Church’s rediscovery of Frege and its impact on Carnap’s shift to the extension/intension distinction in his semantics in the years 1943 – 1947. (shrink)

In the first part of this paper, I express doubts that Tarski and Carnap were guilty of some confusions about the relations between truth and meaning, attributed to them by Soames. In the second part, I consider Quine's Carrollian argument against conventionalism about logical truth, discussed only briefly and approvingly by Soames, and I explore the question whether some not obviously incorrect forms of conventionalism about logical truth, such as what I call "finitary conventionalism", are immune to Quine's argument.