Abstract Entities in Semantics - Essay Example

Entities in Semantics Part A Introduction The paper will explore the arguments presented by Rudolf Carnap on the consideration of entities in semantics in his works; Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology. Next, I will discuss the rules that an expression must meet for it to be considered as an abstract reality. Abstract entities refer to objects that do not occupy space but are perceived to have distinct existences. Some examples of abstract entities are properties, numbers, classes and relations. I will also discuss the implications of including abstract realities in semantics. Finally, the paper will give a personal analysis of Carnap works. The concern on the use of abstract entities in semantics comes from the two divergent views held by semanticists. One group of semanticists; especially those inclined to science hold that some expressions refer to entities including both concrete materials and abstract entities. Concrete materials refer to tangible objects such as trees. However, other semanticists oppose such a view and argue that such a perspective goes against the principles of empiricism and takes semantics back to the “Metaphysical Ontology of the Platonic Kind” (Carnap 242). By saying that such a perspective takes semantics to “Metaphysical of the Platonic Kind” implies that the approach reduces semantics to imitation where semantics can only refer to observable objects. The paper will therefore explore the best approach that may used in inclusion of abstract entities into semantics and avert a controversy as one brought out by Carnap. It will be achieved by first discussing linguistic frameworks, numbers as abstract realities and the implication of accepting a new kind of entities. Linguistics Framework To dispel the controversy presented above, Carnap begin by discussing the linguistic frameworks. Carnap poses a question on whether there exist classes, properties and propositions and goes ahead to assert that such can only be understood by recognizing the distinction between two forms of questions touching on the reality of entities (242). Firstly, Carnap discusses about internal questions that are formulated using new structures of expression. Answers to internal questions may only be achieved by following a logical sequence or empirical methods based on whether the framework is a factual or logical one (242). Logical sequencing refers to finding answers through a series of questions. Empirical method refers to answering question using theories. On the other hand, external questions are in complex forms and require closer evaluation. The reason why complex questions are considered to be in complex form is because such questions are phrased as philosophical statements. An example of internal question is where one asks: Is this a phone on the table? To answer, evaluation is carried out based on certain rules and is usually a routine matter rather than deliberate or a rational procedure. A routine matter refers to a habitual activity. Deliberate or rational procedure is one carried out as an after thought. In rational evaluation of questions, explicit rules must be laid out for evaluation (Carnap 243). From the above, the concept of reality in internal questions refers to a scientific, empirical and non-metaphysical ideas and an expression must fit within a particular space and time before being considered as a reality. In contrast to internal questions, Carnap explains that external questions are not commonly used in the normal conversations nor are they used by scientists. External questioning is done by philosophers where realist offers affirmative answers to external questions. On the other hand, subjective idealists provide a negative response to external questions. A subjective realist only accepts philosophical ideas after representing such ideas as they should be rather than the way they are. For instance, before deciding on the issue of whether same sex marriage is right; a subjective realist will look at issues on human rights, ethics and morals. Numbers as Abstract Realities Carnap further goes ahead to point that an individual’s perception of abstract reality is influenced by the language that one chooses early in life (244). When one accepts abstract entities that are universally acknowledged as the realities, such a person demonstrates acceptance of the general rules for forming various statements. General rules are defined as the principles that govern the structure of an expression. Firstly, Carnap argues that numbers are abstract realities since numbers are like a system that is usually a logical rather than factual. A system is logical built using different parts. Factual systems are based on restricted facts while logical systems allow for reasoning and flexibility. Secondly, the framework for constructing a system of numbers in language is achieved through the use of rules; numerals such as five that are used in formation of sentences (245). The other rule that allows the categorization of numbers as abstract realities is the use of a general term “number” to refer numerals. Thirdly, by expressing various properties of numbers for instance prime and odd numbers makes them abstract realities. The fact that numerical variables may be quantified in a sentence makes them realities. Quantifying of numerals is when one says that there are five ‘n’ in a sentence or word (Carnap 244). Example of a sentence to show the how numerals are quantified is “the cat is under the table”. In the sentence, one “n” has been used in the word “under”. In internal questioning to evaluate whether numbers are entities; one can ask whether there are odd numbers that are greater than fifty. The answer is found through logical analysis. Logical analysis in the case means following specific rules to ascertain whether fifty is an odd number. Implications of Accepting the New Kind of Entities Formation of a new expression by setting a new framework does not necessarily mean that new names have been formed (Carnap 249). Carnap holds that to accept an emerging entity, a general term that becomes the predicate of the new entity is formed. An emerging entity means a newly formed expression to refer to an abstract entity. Predicate refers to an expression to generalize a particular thing. The other requirement for acceptance of new entities is to have variables for the new entity. Example of variables for entities is color that has its values as the range of different shades. The entity should also be tested by formulation of internal questions that can be answered (Carnap 249). The new entities must also allow for evaluation through use of external questions. In addition, to the two requirements discussed above, Carnap asserts that new entities should not be interpreted through referring to beliefs, assumptions, or assertions. Consequently, before accepting varies principles, one should not be influenced by the truth of others. I will now discuss the relationship between semantics and abstract entities. Semantics and Abstract Entities As indicated in the earlier discussion, semanticists have not reached a consensus on the issue of abstract realities. Some semanticists feel that certain expressions are used in language to designate or name a certain entity and as far as an event or physical thing is used to designate, then such an expression automatically refers to an abstract reality. Despite the rule of designates in semantics, the use of abstract entities in designating is opposed by empiricists (Carnap 250). The empiricists argue against the use of a word such as “red to designate property”, “five in designating numbers” or “color designating property”. However, empiricists make a mistake given that they do not consider expressions such as, do you like red that indicate property? Five could be used in designating a number; five may also refer to a number or five items. Carnap faults those semanticists who do not accept the use of five, red and other expressions used designating. Moreover, Carnap is also opposed to semanticist demanding for evidence before such expressions can be considered as abstract realities. Carnap holds such semanticist base the question of existence on a theoretical approach (Carnap 253). Semanticists do not dispute the abstract entities after use of an internal question to evaluate expressions. The doubts of such semanticists emanate from the evaluation based on reasoning done using external questions. The semanticists hold that only after ensuring that there is presence of a system of entities for a particular question that an entity can be accepted into the linguistic form of a particular language. However, such an approach is usually flawed given that acceptance of a certain reality does not require theoretical justification since as earlier noted, realities are not interpreted based on beliefs or assertions. As philosophers continue to use theoretical framework in interpreting realities, they fall in the old meta-physical perspective. The old meta-physical perspective believed in the existence of beings and objects on mere reason of their existence. Consequently, the use of the beliefs and assertions in semantics is wrong according to Carnap because mere beliefs do not always constitute realities. Misinterpretation in Acceptance of Abstract Entities Carnap points that misinterpretations should be dispelled when accepting abstract entities in semantics and science (Carnap 255). Some empiricist argued against certain abstract realities given that their experiences allow individuals to interact with “particulars and not universals”. Only entities that are in “that particulars”, qualify to be considered as realities. Particulars refer to specific objects that one is able to interact with at a given time while universals are objects found within the globe. From such an argument, they feel that an abstract reality is only that which can be defined in terms of reality. However, such an assumption should be dispelled given that such would lead to the need for declarations. The data would also be locked out of the abstract realities since only what can realistically proven is taken to be of universal truth. Part B A Personal Reflection From the explanations presented above by Carnap, the main issue of contention is on how to develop a system for inclusion of new expressions in semantics, which is consistent with his contentions in “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology”. For semanticists to effectively include a certain expression in science and language, well-defined rules must be used in categorization. Abstract entities are present in semantics and take various forms including numbers, propositions, classes, relations and properties. Numbers include both alphabetic letters and numerals. A class is a group of objects that are categorized together based the same attributes. Propositions refer to bearers of truth-value while relations refer to kind of connection uniting different things. Properties refer to tangible and intangible entities. Before an entity can be accepted as an abstract reality, efficiency of the tool used in the assessment must be established. The tool refers to rules that can lead to the formulation of general terms and variables used to determine whether an expression suits to be considered as an abstract reality. Here, I concur with Carnap when the writer reckons that the introduction of constants for a particular expression as the names of the constant is not the most critical step in thing language. Forming of general terms, such as, “five is a number or red is a property” helps in categorization of a new entity as an abstract reality. Additionally, I acknowledge that new entities are the values for the variables and are useful when forming general sentences. For instances, “red” is a value for the variable “property” and in forming other general sentences other shades, for instance brown, can be used. However, in case red had not categorized as one value for property, deciding whether other colors should be considered as abstract realities would be hard. Developing rules for determining whether an expression fit to be considered as an abstract in semantics is the best approach in reconciling the divergent views held by semanticists. Rules are the best option in evaluating expressions since in case of any dispute; the semanticists would refer to the rules to ascertain whether the expression conforms to requirements of an abstract entity. Conclusion The paper has clearly shown that the use of rules that lead to formation of general terms and variables. The rules and variables acts as a predicate on whether a semantic expression qualifies to be as considered abstract entities. The rules help to deal with any disputes among semanticists. Carnap has presented a strong argument that forms the basis for correctly distinguishing whether an expression should be considered as an abstract reality. The paper has shown that the best approach in determining whether an expression meets the threshold of being considered as an abstract reality is by use of the basic rules. Firstly, the new entity must be supported by development of general term that can be used as a predicate of the new entity. Additionally, there must be variables that are used to accept the new entity. Thirdly, the testing of the new reality should not rely on assertions or beliefs. The paper has also demonstrated that the use of philosophical questioning in determining whether an expression fits to be an abstract reality leads to confusion as was the case with the early philosophers. Work Cited Carnap, Rudolf. “Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4 (1963): 241-256. Reprinted in the Supplement to Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic, enlarged edition (University of Chicago Press, 1956). Read More