Regrounding the Unworldly: Carnap’s Politically Engaged Logical Pluralism

IF 0.6 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Noah Friedman-Biglin
{"title":"Regrounding the Unworldly: Carnap’s Politically Engaged Logical Pluralism","authors":"Noah Friedman-Biglin","doi":"10.3390/philosophies9040110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent discussions of logical pluralism trace its origins to Rudolf Carnap’s principle of tolerance; indeed, the principle is seen as one of Carnap’s lasting philosophical contributions. In this paper, I will argue that Carnap’s reasons for adopting this principle are not purely logical, but are rather founded in the Vienna Circle’s manifesto—a programmatic document that brings the Circle’s philosophical work together with a program of social change. Building on work by Uebel, Romizi, and others, I argue that we must understand the principle in light of Carnap’s role in writing the manifesto, and thus as integrated into the larger philosophical and political goals of the Circle. This history illuminates the often-ignored relationship between Carnap’s logical pluralism and his political views. Finally, I turn to the political situation of the post-World War 2 period in the United States. During this time, the Circle’s emigres in the USA transitioned their work from active efforts to reform society to the technical work that we recognize as the foundation of American analytic philosophy today. In this final section, I argue that the reasons that Carnap distanced himself from the political foundations of his view were due in large part to McCarthy-era persecution of left-wing academics.","PeriodicalId":31446,"journal":{"name":"Philosophies","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9040110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent discussions of logical pluralism trace its origins to Rudolf Carnap’s principle of tolerance; indeed, the principle is seen as one of Carnap’s lasting philosophical contributions. In this paper, I will argue that Carnap’s reasons for adopting this principle are not purely logical, but are rather founded in the Vienna Circle’s manifesto—a programmatic document that brings the Circle’s philosophical work together with a program of social change. Building on work by Uebel, Romizi, and others, I argue that we must understand the principle in light of Carnap’s role in writing the manifesto, and thus as integrated into the larger philosophical and political goals of the Circle. This history illuminates the often-ignored relationship between Carnap’s logical pluralism and his political views. Finally, I turn to the political situation of the post-World War 2 period in the United States. During this time, the Circle’s emigres in the USA transitioned their work from active efforts to reform society to the technical work that we recognize as the foundation of American analytic philosophy today. In this final section, I argue that the reasons that Carnap distanced himself from the political foundations of his view were due in large part to McCarthy-era persecution of left-wing academics.
重新认识非世界:卡纳普的政治参与逻辑多元论
最近关于逻辑多元论的讨论将其源头追溯到鲁道夫-卡尔纳普(Rudolf Carnap)的宽容原则;事实上,该原则被视为卡尔纳普在哲学上的持久贡献之一。在本文中,我将论证卡尔纳普采用这一原则的原因并非纯粹逻辑性的,而是建立在维也纳圈宣言的基础之上--维也纳圈宣言是一份纲领性文件,它将维也纳圈的哲学工作与社会变革计划结合在一起。在 Uebel、Romizi 等人的研究基础上,我认为我们必须根据卡尔纳普在撰写宣言中所扮演的角色来理解这一原则,并将其融入圈子更大的哲学和政治目标之中。这段历史揭示了卡尔纳普的逻辑多元论与他的政治观点之间经常被忽视的关系。最后,我要谈谈二战后美国的政治形势。在此期间,圈子在美国的移民将他们的工作从改革社会的积极努力过渡到我们今天公认的作为美国分析哲学基础的技术性工作。在最后一部分,我认为卡尔纳普之所以远离其观点的政治基础,在很大程度上是由于麦卡锡时代对左翼学者的迫害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Philosophies
Philosophies Multiple-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
122
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信