It would be very helpful if readers could point out things I’m missing, or current issues they’d like to see discussed from a Carnapian viewpoint, or new papers I’ve overlooked. I’d be especially grateful if authors could bring their new Carnap-related papers to my attention. Not that I don’t have enough to write about as it is (my current list of ideas will last me a year, and it keeps getting longer), but part of the point of this blog is to keep me current, and obviously my own perspective is pretty limited. So I’d like help!
If your idea is connected with (or inspired by) something else that’s appeared on this blog, leave a comment (doesn’t matter how old the original post is — I’ll see the comment). Otherwise send me an e-mail at awcarus (at) mac.com; thanks.
Dear Andre
I only discovered your blog yesterday. I am very pleased that I did. Thank you.
It was part of general search for people writing about Carnap. In particular, I have been looking for views on whether Carnap would have supported analytic metaphysics (given his permitting of analytic truths, epistemically constrained only to what is formally or linguistically possible).
But I have a question for you that is not directly about the above: During my studies, my discovery of Carnap’s Aufbau came after my introduction to his work from the 1950s—his later, more semantic period. The Aufbau came as a shock to me because, starting from the very title of the book (The Logical Construction of the World!!?) and then the development of the constructional system where concepts are rationally ‘built up’ from basic sensory experiences (from the subjective to the objective!?), this seemed in stark contrast to the analytic-synthetic distinction, which I know and love Carnap for. I was shocked because, to me, it seemed as if he was saying it was possible that we could create a deductive system that accurately represented a contingent reality. Yet I also know that he was, at least theoretically, observant of the Humean logic-fact distinction. I am still not reassured that the Aufbau is fully observant of the fact that contingent realities cannot be logically represented. Logical systems are finite and constructed. Contingent reality is infinitely variable and mind-independent. How is this supposed to work?
What is your view on this? Has anyone else ever been worried about this?
Of course, I am sure I have missed something fundamental about the Aufbau. But what is it?
All the best
Carin
Sorry about leaving this un-responded-to for so long; I’ve been out of commission somewhat over the past couple of months. Getting back on track, though, and I’ll think about this question; I don’t think I’ve ever heard it raised specifically about the Aufbau, that’s a new one.