Back to Flocke and Carnap’s supposedly metaphysical methodology

Before I move on to more current things, I want to go back and respond to Vera Flocke’s response to my post about her 2024 paper “Carnap is not against metaphysics” in the Interpreting Carnap volume. That was over two years ago, and I rudely left her without a reply. At the risk of responding to things she no longer believes (or has any interest in), I will now finally do her the rudimentary courtesy of responding to her objections to my post. I apologize for the tardiness of this follow-up.

She makes two main points: First, that — contrary to my critique — she did in fact (implicitly) make the principle of tolerance a criterion for distinguishing between the earlier and later Carnap, and second, that Carnap was not against metaphysics but against certain meta-metaphysical connotations of metaphysical positions. (I’m less sure about this second one.)

Continue reading

Catching up: Special issue on Carnap’s metaphilosophy

(This is the first of several posts that will try to catch up on a few bits of Carnap-related news over the past year or so. Most of you will already know about most of it; these catching-up posts will mainly be of interest to those who, like me, were too busily focused to pay attention to the wider world.)

A few years ago, I mentioned here that there would be an issue of the Monist on Carnap’s metaphilosophy. Quite a number of people responded to the cfp and sent things in; the result was published last October. Thanks go especially to Fraser MacBride, the editor of the Monist, who helped a great deal, not only with general day-to-day guidance, but specifically with the suggestion that I translate a couple of the early Carnap texts I was writing about at the time and include them in the issue, especially since their originals are about to be published in a conference volume edited by Christian Damböck, Günter Sandner, and Meike Werner (Logical Empiricism, Life Reform, and the German Youth Movement, Springer, forthcoming). These translations were Carnap’s first contributions to the Monist.

When I first went about putting the issue together, the centerpiece was to have been a synthesis by Bill Demopoulos of his various writings on Carnap over the previous decade (mostly collected in his Logicism and its Philosophical Legacy, CUP 2013), in which he intended to spell out the general perspective on Carnap implicit in many of those pieces. I was very much looking forward to this (I disagreed with Bill, around the edges, but it was a very productive sort of disagreement) — but it was never written, alas, as Bill had the effrontery to die before he could get down to work on it. Thanks to Fraser (again) and all the contributors for ensuring that despite this devastating blow, the issue still came together amazingly well; details in my introduction. My own contribution to it, as well as Huw Price’s reply, can be found here.