AccScience Publishing / BIJP / Volume 14 / Issue 3 / DOI: 10.29228/beytulhikme.73897
Cite this article
3
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
RESEARCH ARTICLE

How Do Grice and Strawson End Up in a Rabbit Hole? 

Yunus Aydemir1
Show Less
1 Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, Felsefe Bölümü 06800, Ankara, Türkiye
BIJP 2024, 14(3), 661–676; https://doi.org/10.29228/beytulhikme.73897
Received: 27 November 2023 | Published online: 29 July 2024
© 2024 by the Authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

Since Kant’s usage of analytic and synthetic to divide propositions into two categories, there have been many different philosophers who have used the same distinction over time. However, this does not necessarily mean that every philosopher who uses this distinction for their philosophical purposes actually favors it. The most important of all is unquestionably Willard Van Orman Quine. He defines the existence of the distinction as an unempirical dogma of empiricists or a metaphysical article of faith. To him such a distinction does not exist. He believes he offers enough proofs for this claim in his Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Alternatively, Grice and Strawson strongly believe in the distinction. Therefore, they write an article, namely In Defense of a Dogma, to refute Quine’s claims. The main objective in this study is to demonstrate that the response by Grice and Strawson does not work at all.

Keywords
Analytic and synthetic distinction
analytic propositions
synthetic propositions
two dogmas of empiricism
in defense of a dogma.
References
  1. Eshemomoh, F. (2021). The Metaphysics of Empiricism: Two Dogmas of Empiricism Reexamined. IGWEBUIKE: An African Journal of Arts and Humanities, 7(1), 29-42.  https://doi.org/10. 13140 / RG.2.2.19482.59846
  2. Grice, H. P., & Strawson, P. F. (1956). In Defense of a Dogma. The Philosophical Review65(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.2307/2182828
  3. Pigden, C. R. (1987). Two Dogmatists. Inquiry30(1-2), 173-193.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00201748708602116
  4. Putnam, H. (1983). ‘Two dogmas’ revisited. In Philosophical Papers (pp. 87-97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625275.007
  5. Quine, W. (1991). Two Dogmas in Retrospect. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 21(3), 265-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1991.10717246
  6. Saussure, F. D. (2011). Course in General Linguistics (P. Meisel, & H. Saussy, Eds.). New York: Columbia University Press.
  7. W. V. Quine.. (1951). Main Trends in Recent Philosophy: Two Dogmas of Empiricism. The Philosophical Review60(1), 20–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/2181906
Share
Back to top
Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy, Print ISSN: 1303-8303, Published by AccScience Publishing