Survey of the relations between three theses of Quine's "Two Dogmas"

Subject Areas : Epistemological researches

Ziya Movahed ¹ , Hosein Shaqaqi ^{2 *}

1 - استاد فلسفه و منطق مؤسسه پژوهشی حکمت و فلسفه ایران
2 - دکترای فلسفه از مؤسسه پژوهشی حکمت و فلسفه

Received: 2015-06-13 Accepted : 2015-09-01 Published : 2015-09-23

Keywords: Epistemological holism, Meaning holism, Rejection of the nalytic-synthetic distinction, Meaning atomism,

Abstract :

This article is focused on Quine's "Two dogmas of empiricism".  We discuss about his holism.His holism has two aspects: epistemological holism (EH) and meaning holism (MH). The third thesis that we discuss about is "Rejection of the analytic–synthetic distinction" (RASD). Fodor & Lepore (1993) have not opposed EH and RASD, but they claim: a)                  RASD is a premise for EH argument. b)                  Although Quine's EH is regarded as a premise for his MH argument, but this argument is not defensible. On the other hand, Okasha (2000) and Becker (2001) show: (a)                Quine's EH is a premise for his RASD argument. (b)               The inference of MH from EH is defensible. At this article: (a) both claims of Fodor and Lepore, have been rejected and defended of the claims of Okasha and Becker, and (b) added a claim: RASD and MH (the both is based on EH) are the same, in fact, they are one thesis.  

References:

Ayer, Alfred Jules (1952) Language, Truth and Logic, New York: Dover Publications.

Becker, K. (2001) “Understanding Quine’s famous statement”, Erkenntnis, 55: 73–84, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Cozzo, Cesare (2002) Does Epistemological Holism Lead to Meaning-Holism?, http://philpapers.org/archive/COZDEH.pdf.

Creath, Richard (2011) “Logical Empiricism”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism.

De Rosa, Raffaella and Lepore, Ernest (2006) “Quine’s Meaning Holism”, The Cambridge Companion to Quine. Cambridge Unoversity Press.

Fodor, Jerry and Lepore, Ernest (1993) Holism, a Shopper’s Guide, Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell,

Hylton, Peter (2007) Quine, New York: Routledge.

Markie, Peter (2008) “Rationalism vs. Empiricism”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism.

Okasha, S. (2000) “Holism about Meaning and about Evidence: in Defence of W.V.Quine”, Erkenntnis, 52: 39–61.

Orenstein, Alex (1998) “Quine, Wilard van Orman”, Rutledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by By Edward Craig, London: Routledge; https://www.rep.routledge.com/contributor/orenstein-alex.

Quine, W. V. (1962) “A Comment on Grunbaum’s Claim”, in S. G. Harding (ed.) Can Theories be Refuted?, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland (1976).

-------. (1963) “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” in From a Logical Point of View, New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, pp.20-46.

Raatikainen, Panu (2003/ Fall) “Is Quine a verificationist?”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 41, Issue 3, pp.399-409;

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2041-6962.2003.tb00959.x/pdf.