Book contents
- The Philosophical Project of Carnap and Quine
- The Philosophical Project of Carnap and Quine
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Carnap, Quine, and Logical Empiricism
- Part II Carnap, Quine, and American Pragmatism
- Part III Carnap and Quine on Logic, Language, and Translation
- Part IV Carnap and Quine on Ontology and Metaphysics
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 February 2023
Edited by
Book contents
- The Philosophical Project of Carnap and Quine
- The Philosophical Project of Carnap and Quine
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Carnap, Quine, and Logical Empiricism
- Part II Carnap, Quine, and American Pragmatism
- Part III Carnap and Quine on Logic, Language, and Translation
- Part IV Carnap and Quine on Ontology and Metaphysics
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Philosophical Project of Carnap and Quine , pp. 272 - 288Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Adler, Mortimer. (1941). “God and the Professors” Presentation at Conference on Science, Philosophy, and Religion. www.ditext.com/adler/gp.htmlGoogle Scholar
Alspector-Kelly, Marc. (2001). “On Quine on Carnap on Ontology.” Philosophical Studies 102:1, 93–122.Google Scholar
Awodey, Steve and Klein, Carsten, eds. (2004). Carnap Brought Home. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Baghramian, M. and Marchetti, S., eds. (2018). Pragmatism and the European Traditions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Becker, Edward. (2012). The Themes of Quine’s Philosophy: Meaning, Reference, and Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ben-Menahem, Y. (2006). Conventionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Menahem, Y. (2016). “The Web and the Tree: Quine and James on the Growth of Knowledge.” In Kemp and Janssen-Lauret, 59–75.Google Scholar
Bird, Alexander. (2012). “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Its Significance: An Essay Review of the Fiftieth Anniversary Edition.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63:4, 859–883.Google Scholar
Blatti, Stephan and Lapointe, Sandra, eds. (2016). Ontology after Carnap. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blumberg, A. and Feigl, H.. (1931). “Logical Positivism: A New Movement in European Philosophy.” The Journal of Philosophy 28:11, 281–296.Google Scholar
Bonhert, Herbert G. (1963). “Carnap’s Theory of Definition and Analyticity.” In Schilpp, 407–430.Google Scholar
Boolos, G., Burgess, J., and Jeffrey, R., eds. (2002). Computability and Logic, 4th ed. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Borradori, Giovanna. (1994). The American Philosopher. Trans. Rosanna Crocitto. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1922b). “Vom Chaos zur Wirklichkeit.” Ms. in Carnap-Nachlass RC 081-05-01, Archive of Scientific Philosophy, Hillman Library, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1923). “Über die Aufgabe der Physik und die Anwendung des Grundsatzes der Einfachstheit.” Kant-Studien 28:1/2, 90–107.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1924). “Dreidimensionalität des Raumes und Kausalität.” Annalen der Naturphilosophie und philosophischen Kritik 4:1, 105–130.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1927). “Eigentliche und uneingentliche Begriffe.” Philosophische Zeitschrift für Forschung und Aussprache 1:4, 355–374.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1928b). Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie, Berlin: Bernary, trans. as “Pseudoproblems in Philosophy.” In The Logical Structure of the World World/ Pseudoproblems in Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967, repr. Chicago: Open Court, 2003.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1928/1967). The Logical Structure of the World and Pseudoproblems in Philosophy. Trans. Rolf George. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1929). Abriß der Logistik. Mit besonderer Ber ücksichtigung der Relationstheorie und ihrer Anwendungen. Vienna: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1930). “Die Mathematik als Zweig der Logik.” Blätter für Deutsche Philosophie 4:3/4, 298–340.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1932a). “Die physikalische Sprache als Unversalsprache der Wissenschaft.” Erkenntnis 2:1, 432–465. Trans. The Unity of Science, London: Kegan, Paul, Trench Teubner & Co., 1934.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1932b). “Psychologie in physikalischer Sprache.” Erkenntnis 3:1, 107–142. Trans. “Psychology in Physicalist Language.” In Ayer, 165–198.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1932/1959). “The Elimination of Metaphysics Through the Logical Analysis of Language.” Reprinted in Ayer, 60–81.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1932/1987). “On Protocol Sentences.” Trans. by R. Creath and R. Nollan. Noûs 21:4, 457–470.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1934b). “Meaning, Assertion and Proposal.” Philosophy of Science 1:3, 359–360.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1934c). “On the Character of Philosophical Problems.” Philosophy of Science 1:1, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1934d). “The Task of the Logic of Science.” Trans. Hans Kaal. In McGuinness, 46–66.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1934/1937). The Logical Syntax of Language. Trans. Amethe Smeaton. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1936a). “Testability and Meaning.” Philosophy of Science 3:4, 420–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1936b). “Von der Erkenntnistheorie zur Wissenschaftslogik.” In Actes du Congrès Internationale de Philosophie Scientifique, Paris: Herman and Cie, 36–51.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1937). “Testability and Meaning – Continued.” Philosophy of Science 4:1, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1939). “Foundations of Logic and Mathematics.” In Encyclopedia of Unified Science, eds. Neurath, Otto, Carnap, Rudolf, and Morris, Charles W., Vol. 1, No. 3, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 139–213.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1942). Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1946). “Remarks on Induction and Truth.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 6:4, 590–602.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1950a). “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4:11, 20–40.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1950b). Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1950/1956). “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.” Reprinted in his (1956), 205–221.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1952). “Meaning Postulates.” Philosophical Studies 3:5 65–73. Reprinted as Appendix B in the second edition of Meaning and Necessity (University of Chicago Press, 1956).Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1952/1990). “Quine on Analyticity.” Written in 1952; first published in Quine and Carnap (1990), 427–432.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1955). “Meaning and Synonymy in Natural Languages.” Philosophical Studies 6:3, 33–47.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1956). Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. 2nd enlarged ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1958a). “Beobachtungssprache und theoretische sprache.” Dialectica 12:3–4, 236–248. Translated and reprinted as “Observation Language and Theoretical Language.” In Hintikka, 75–85.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1958b). Introduction to Symbolic Logic and Its Applications. Toronto, Canada: Dover Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. (1963c). “Wilfrid Sellars on Abstract Entities in Semantics.” In Schilpp, 923–927.Google Scholar
Carus, André. (2007a). Carnap and Twentieth-Century Thought. Explication as Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carus, André. (2007b). “Carnap’s Intellectual Development.” In Friedman and Creath, 19–42.Google Scholar
Carus, André. (2016). “Carnap and Phenomenology: What happened in 1924?” in Influences on the Aufbau, ed. Damböck, Christian (Vienna: Springer), 137–162.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David, Manley, David, and Wasserman, Ryan, eds. (2009). Metametaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Chang, Hasok. (2008). “Contingent Transcendental Arguments for Metaphysical Principles.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 63: 113–133.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (2000). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, G. A. (2013). “Resolving Two Key Problems in Mead’s Mind, Self, and Society.” In George Herbert Mead in the 21st Century, eds. Burke, F. Thomas and Skowronski, Krzysztof Piotr. New York: Lexington Press, 95–106.Google Scholar
Costreie, Sorin, ed. (2016). Early Analytic Philosophy – New Perspectives on the Tradition. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Creath, Richard. (1990b). “Quine, Carnap, and the Rejection of Intuition.” In Perspectives on Quine, eds. Barrett, Roger B. and Gibson, Roger F.. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 55–66.Google Scholar
Creath, Richard. (1990c). “The Unimportance of Semantics.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:2, 405–416.Google Scholar
Creath, Richard. (1994). “Functionalist Theories of Meaning and the Defense of Analyticity.” In Salmon and Wolters, 287–304.Google Scholar
Creath, Richard. (2004). “Quine on the Intelligibility and Relevance of Analyticity.” In Gibson, 47–64.Google Scholar
Creath, Richard. (2007). “Quine’s Challenge to Carnap.” In Friedman and Creath, 316–335.Google Scholar
Creath, Richard. (2009). “The Gentle Strength of Tolerance: The Logical Syntax of Language and Carnap’s Philosophical Programme.” In Wagner (2009), 203–214.Google Scholar
Creath, Richard. (2012a). “Analyticity in the Theoretical Language.” In Creath (2012), 57–66.Google Scholar
Creath, Richard, ed. (2012). Rudolf Carnap and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Creath, Richard and Friedman, Michael, eds. (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curd, Martin and Psillos, Stathis, eds. (2008). The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
David, Marian. (1996). “Analyticity, Carnap, Quine, and Truth.” Philosophical Perspectives 10, 281–296.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. (1973). “Radical Interpretation.” Reprinted in The Essential Davidson. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, 184–195.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. (1975). “Thought and Talk.” Reprinted in his Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984, 155–170.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. (1986). “A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs.” Reprinted in The Essential Davidson, ed. Lepore, E. and Ludwig, K.. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 251–265.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. (1992). “The Second Person.” Reprinted in Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001a, 107–122.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. (2001a). “Comments on the Karlovy Vary Papers.” In Kotatko et al., 285–308.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald and Hintikka, Jaakko, eds. (1969). Words and Objections: Essays on the Work of W.V. Quine. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Demos, Raphael. (1948). “Note on Plato’s Theory of Ideas.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 8:3, 456–460.Google Scholar
Devlin, William J. and Bokulich, Alisa, eds. (2015). Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
De Waal, Cornelis. (2008). “A Pragmatist World View: George Herbert Mead’s Philosophy of the Act.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Philosophy, ed. Misak, Cheryl. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 144–168.Google Scholar
Domski, Mary and Dickson, Michael Dickson, eds. (2010). Discourse on a New Method. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Dreben, Burton. (1992). “Putnam, Quine – and the Facts.” Philosophical Topics 20:1. The Philosophy of Hilary Putnam. 293–315.Google Scholar
Ebbs, Gary. (1997). Rule-Following and Realism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ebbs, Gary. (2011). “Carnap and Quine on Logical Truth.” Mind 120:478 (April 2011), 193–237.Google Scholar
Ebbs, Gary. (2017). Carnap, Quine, and Putnam on Methods of Inquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ebbs, Gary. (2019). “Carnap on Analyticity and Existence: A Clarification, Defense, and Development of Quine’s Reading of Carnap’s Views on Ontology.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 7:5, 1–31. https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/3876Google Scholar
Edmister, Bradley and O’Shea, Michael. (1994). “W.V. Quine: Perspective on Logic, Science, and Philosophy.” Interview. Reprinted in Quine (2008b), 43–56.Google Scholar
Eklund, Matti. (2009). “Carnap and Ontological Pluralism.” In Chalmers, Manley, and Wasserman, 130–156.Google Scholar
Enderton, Herbert. (1972). A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. New York: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Faris, Ellsworth. (1936). “Review of Mind, Self, and Society.” American Journal of Sociology 41:6, 809–813.Google Scholar
Feigl, Herbert. (1950). “The Mind-Body Problem in the Development of Logical Empiricism.” Reprinted in Feigl, Inquiries and Provocations, ed. Cohen, R. S.. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1981, 286–301.Google Scholar
Feigl, Herbert and Maxwell, Grover, eds. (1962). Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time. Vol. 3. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Floyd, Juliet and Shieh, Sanford, eds. (2001). Future Pasts: The Analytic Tradition in Twentieth-Century Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press,Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry and Lepore, Ernest. (1992). Holism: A Shopper’s Guide. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Franco, Paul. (2020). “Hans Reichenbach’s and C. I. Lewis’s Kantian Philosophies of Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 80: 62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Philipp. (1963). “The Pragmatic Components in Carnap’s ‘Elimination of Metaphysics.’” In Schilpp, 159–164.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. (1987). “Carnap’s Aufbau Reconsidered.” Reprinted in Friedman (1999), 89–113.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. (1992). “Epistemology in the Aufbau.” Reprinted with postscript in Friedman (1999), 114–164.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. (1999). Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. (2007). “The Aufbau and the Rejection of Metaphysics.” In Creath and Friedman, 129–153.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. (2010). “Synthetic History Reconsidered.” In Domski and Dickson, 573–813.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. (2012). “Kuhn and Philosophy.” Modern Intellectual History 9:1, 77–88.Google Scholar
Frost-Arnold, Greg. (2011). “Quine’s Evolution from ‘Carnap’s Disciple’ to the Author of ‘Two Dogmas’.” HOPOS: Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 1:2, 291–316.Google Scholar
Frost-Arnold, Greg. (2013). Carnap, Tarski, and Quine at Harvard: Conversations on Logic, Mathematics, and Science. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
George, Alexander. (2000). “On Washing the Fur without Wetting It: Quine, Carnap, and Analyticity.” Mind, New Series, 109:433, 1–24.Google Scholar
Gibson, Roger F., ed. (2004). The Cambridge Companion to Quine. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glock, Hans-Johann. (2003). Quine and Davidson on Language, Thought and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. and Strawson, P. F.. (1956). “In Defense of a Dogma.” The Philosophical Review 65:2, 141–158.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, Martin. (2014). “Quine’s Conception of Explication – and Why It Isn’t Carnap’s.” In Harman and Lepore (2014), 508–525.Google Scholar
Hacker, P. M. S. (1996). Wittgenstein’s Place in Twentieth-Century Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hahn, L. E. and Schilpp, P. A., eds. (1986). The Philosophy of W.V. Quine. La Salle, Il: Open Court.Google Scholar
Hahn, L. E. and Schilpp, P. A., eds. (1998). The Philosophy of W.V. Quine. Expanded ed. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Hardcastle, Gary and Richardson, Alan, eds. (2003). Logical Empiricism in North America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert and Lepore, Ernie, eds. (2014). A Companion to W.V.O. Quine. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heidelberger, Michael. (2003). “The Mind-Body Problem in the Origin of Logical Empiricism: Herbert Feigl and Psychophysical Parallelism.” In Logical Empiricism. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Parrini, Paolo, Salmon, Wesley, and Salmon, Merrilee. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 233–262.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. (1950). “Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning.” Revue international de philosophie 41:11, 41–63.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. (1951). “The Concept of Cognitive Significance: A Reconsideration.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 80:1, 61–77.Google Scholar
Hillier, Sam. (2010). “Analyticity and Language Engineering: Carnap’s Logical Syntax.” European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 6:2, 25–46.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko, ed. (1975). Rudolf Carnap: Logical Empiricist. Synthese Library 73. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hookway, Christopher. (2008). “Pragmatism and the Given: C. I. Lewis, Quine, and Peirce.” In The Oxford Handbook of American Philosophy, ed. Misak, Cheryl. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 269–289.Google Scholar
Horwich, Paul, ed. (1993). World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Howard, Don. (2003). “Two Left Turns Make a Right: On the Curious Political Career of North American Philosophy of Science.” In Hardcastle and Richardson, 25–93.Google Scholar
Howard, Don. (2018). “Quine, Dewey, and the Pragmatist Tradition in American Philosophy of Science.” Lecture at HOPOS conference Groningen, Holland.Google Scholar
Huebner, Daniel. (2012). “The Construction of Mind, Self, and Society: The Social Process Behind G. H. Mead’s Social Psychology.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 48:2, 134–153.Google Scholar
Hylton, Peter. (2001). “‘The Defensible Province of Philosophy’: Quine’s 1934 Lectures on Carnap.” In Floyd and Shieh, 257–276.Google Scholar
Hylton, Peter. (2013). “Quine and the Aufbau: The Possibility of Objective Knowledge.” In Reck, 78–92.Google Scholar
Hylton, Peter. (2014b). “Significance in Quine.” Grazer Philosophische Studies 89, 113–133.Google Scholar
Hylton, Peter. (2021). “Carnap and Quine on Analyticity: The Nature of the Disagreement.” Noûs 55:2, 445–462.Google Scholar
Hylton, Peter. (forthcoming). “Moorean Propositions and Russellian Confusion.” In Early Analytic Philosophy: Origins and Transformations, ed. James Conant and Gilad Nir. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jacquette, Dale. (2003). Philosophy, Psychology, and Psychologism: Critical and Historical Readings on the Psychological Turn in Philosophy. New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
James, William. (1907/1909/1955). Pragmatism and Four Essays from The Meaning of Truth. New York: Meridian Books.Google Scholar
James, William. (1897/1956). The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Järvilehto, Lauri. (2009). “The Pragmatic A Priori of C. I. Lewis.” Cognitio-Estudos 6:2, 96–102.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans. (1985). G. H. Mead: A Contemporary Re-Examination of His Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kemp, Gary. (2014). “Quine’s Relationship with Analytic Philosophy.” In Harman and Lepore, 69–88.Google Scholar
Kemp, Gary. (2016). “Underdetermination, Realism, and Transcendental Metaphysics in Quine.” In Kemp and Janssen-Lauret, 168–188.Google Scholar
Kemp, Gary and Janssen-Lauret, Frederique, eds. (2016). Quine and His Place in History. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon. (2003). “Logical Positivism and the Mind-Body Problem.” In Logical Empiricism: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Ed. Parrini, P., Salmon, M., and Salmon, W.. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klagge, J. and Nordmann, A., eds. (1993). Ludwig Wittgenstein: Philosophical Occasions. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Klein, Alexander. (2008). “Divide Et Impera! William James’s Pragmatist Tradition in the Philosophy of Science.” Philosophical Topics 36:1, 129–166.Google Scholar
Kotatko, P., Pagin, P., and Segal, G., eds. (2001). Interpreting Davidson. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. (1975). “Outline of a Theory of Truth.” Journal of Philosophy 72:19, 690–716.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. (1982). Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. (1962/1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. (2000). The Road Since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview. Ed. Conant, James and Haugel, John. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, eds. (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leonardi, Paolo and Santambrogio, Marco, eds. (1995). On Quine: New Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lepore, Ernest and Ludwig, Kirk. (2005). Davidson: Meaning, Truth, Language and Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I. (1946). An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Levine, James. (2009). “From Moore to Peano to Watson: The Mathematical Roots of Russell’s Naturalism and Behaviorism.” The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 4, 1–126.Google Scholar
Levine, James. (2016). “The Place of Vagueness in Russell’s Philosophical Development.” In Costreie, 161–212.Google Scholar
Limbeck-Lilienau, Christoph. (2012) “Carnap’s Encounter with Pragmatism.” In Creath (2012), 89–112.Google Scholar
MacBride, Fraser. (2021). “Rudolf Carnap and David Lewis on Metaphysics: A Question of Historical Ancestry.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 9:1, 1–31.Google Scholar
Manninen, Juha. (2002). “Wie entstand der Physikalismus?” Nachrichten. Forschungsstelle und Dokumentationszentrum für Österreichische Philosophie, Graz 10, 22–52.Google Scholar
Manninen, Juha. (2003). “Towards a Physicalistic Attitude.” In The Vienna Circle and Logical Empiricism. Re-evaluation and Future Perspectives. Ed. Stadler, F.. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 133–150.Google Scholar
Massey, G. J. (1978). “Indeterminacy, Inscrutability, and Ontological Relativity.” American Philosophical Quarterly, Monograph 12, 43–55.Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela. (2015). “Walking the Line: Kuhn Between Realism and Relativism.” In Devlin and Bokulich, 135–152.Google Scholar
Maxwell, Grover. (1962). “The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities.” In Feigl and Maxwell, 3–15.Google Scholar
McGuinness, Brian, ed. (1987). Unified Science: The Vienna Circle Monographs Series Originally. Ed. Neurath, Otto. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, & Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Ed. Morris, Charles. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1964). Selected Writings. Ed. Reck, Andrew. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Mills, Charles W. (2007). “White Ignorance.” In Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance, Ed. Sullivan, Shannon and Tuana, Nancy. New York: Suny Press, 13–38.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1993). “Wittgenstein’s Lectures in 1930–33.” In Klagge and Nordmann, 46–114.Google Scholar
Mormann, Thomas. (2007). “Carnap’s Logical Empiricism, Values, and American Pragmatism.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 38:1, 127–146.Google Scholar
Mormann, Thomas. (2010). “History of Philosophy of Science As Philosophy of Science by Other Means?” In Stadler, 29–40.Google Scholar
Mormann, Thomas. (2012a). “A Place for Pragmatism in the Dynamics of Reason?” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43, 27–37.Google Scholar
Mormann, Thomas. (2012b). “Toward a Theory of the Pragmatic A Priori.” In Creath, 113–132.Google Scholar
Mormann, Thomas. (2016). “Morris’ Pariser Programm einer wissenschaftlichen Philosophie.” In Wissenschaft und Praxis. Ed. Bonnet, Christian and Nemeth, Elisabeth. Vienna: Springer, 73–88.Google Scholar
Morris, Charles. (1925). Symbolism and Reality: A Study in the Nature of Mind. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Morris, Charles. (1936). “The Concept of Meaning in Pragmatism and Logical Positivism.” Actes du huitieme congres intemational de philosophie. 2–7 September, Prague, 130–138.Google Scholar
Morris, Charles. (1937). Logical Positivism, Pragmatism, and Scientific Empiricism. Paris: Hermann et Cie.Google Scholar
Morris, Charles. (1937/1979). Logical Positivism, Pragmatism, and Scientific Empiricism. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, reprint of 1937 Hermann edition.Google Scholar
Morris, Charles. (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, 1, 2, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1938. Reprinted in Neurath et al. (1969), 78–137.Google Scholar
Morris, Charles. (1942). “Empiricism, Religion, and Democracy.” In Science, Philosophy, and Religion: Second Symposium. Ed. Bryson, Lyman and Finkelstein, Louis. New York: Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in their Relation to the Democratic Society, 213–241.Google Scholar
Mulvaney, Robert J. and Zeltner, Philip M., eds. (1981). Pragmatism: Its Sources and Prospects. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Murphey, Murray. (2012). The Development of Quine’s Philosophy. Boston: Springer Science.Google Scholar
Neurath, Otto. (1910). “Zur Theorie der Sozialwissenschaften.” Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich 34, 37–67. Trans. “On the Theory of Social Science” in Neurath, Economic Writings: Selections 1904–1945 (ed. by T. Uebel and R. S. Cohen), Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004, 265–291.Google Scholar
Mulvaney, Robert J. and Zeltner, Philip M., eds. (1928). “Rezension: R. Carnap, Der Logische Aufbau der Welt und Scheinprobleme der Philosophie.” Der Kampf 21, 624–626. Reprinted in Neurath, Gesammelte philosophische und methodologische Schriften (ed. by R. Haller and H. Rutte), Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1981, 295–297.Google Scholar
Mulvaney, Robert J. and Zeltner, Philip M., eds. (1931). “Physikalismus.” Scientia 50, 297–303. Trans. “Physicalism” in Neurath (1983), 52–57.Google Scholar
Mulvaney, Robert J. and Zeltner, Philip M., eds. (1932). “Protokollsätze.” Erkenntnis 3:1, 204–214. Trans. “Protocol Sentences” in Ayer 1959, 199–208, and “Protocol Statements” in Neurath (1983), 91–99.Google Scholar
Neurath, Otto, Carnap, Rudolf, and Morris, Charles, eds. (1969). Foundations of the Unity of Science: Toward an International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol 1, Nos 1–10. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
O’Shea, James. (2018). “The Analytic Pragmatist Conception of the A Priori: C. I. Lewis and Wilfrid Sellars.” In Baghramian and Marchetti, 203–227.Google Scholar
Orenstein, Alex and Kotatko, Petr, eds. (2000). Knowledge, Language and Logic: Questions for Quine. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Pearson, James. (2011). “Distinguishing W.V. Quine and Donald Davidson.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 1:1, 1–22.Google Scholar
Pearson, James. (2017). “Taking Care with Quine’s ‘Don’t-Cares.’” The Monist 100:2, 266–287.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1868). “Some Consequences of Four Incapacities.” Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2:3, 140–157.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1877/1966). “The Fixation of Belief.” In Selected Writings. Ed. Wiener, P. P.. New York: Dover, 91–112.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1878/1966) “How to Make Our Ideas Clear.” In Selected Writings. Ed. Wiener, P. P.. New York: Dover, 113–136.Google Scholar
Pincock, Christopher. (2005). “A Reserved Reading of Carnap’s Aufbau.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86:4, 518–543.Google Scholar
Planck, Max. (1950). Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. Trans. Frank Gaynor. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis and Curd, Martin, eds. (2008). The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. (1962). “The Analytic and the Synthetic.” Reprinted in his (1975), 33–69.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. (1975). Mind, Language, and Reality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. (1978). Meaning and the Moral Sciences. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1932). “The Logic of Sequences. A Generalization of Principia Mathematica.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1935). “Review of Logische Syntax der Sprache by Rudolf Carnap.” Philosophical Review 44:4, 394–397.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1937). “Is Logic a Matter of Words?” (unpublished manuscript), abstract in Journal of Philosophy 34:1937, 674.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1939). “Designation and Existence.” The Journal of Philosophy 36:26, 701–709.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1943). “Notes on Existence and Necessity.” Journal of Philosophy 40:5, 113–127.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1949). “Animadversions on the Notion of Meaning.” In Quine (2008a), 152–156.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1950/1980). “Identity, Ostension, and Hypostasis.” Reprinted in Quine (1980), 65–79.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1951a). “On Carnap’s Views on Ontology.” Reprinted in Quine (1976), 203–211.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1951b). “On Carnap’s Views on Ontology.” Philosophical Studies 2:5, 65–72.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1951c). “The Present State of Empiricism.” Appendix 6 to Verhaegh (2018). Transcription by S. Verhaegh.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1951d). “The Problem of Meaning in Linguistics.” In Quine (1980), 47–64.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1953b). “Notes on the Theory of Reference.” Reprinted in Quine (1980), 130–138.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1957). “The Scope and Language of Science.” Reprinted in his (1976), 228–245.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1958). “Le mythe de la signification.” In La Philosophie Analytique. Ed. Cahiers de Royaumont, 4. Paris: Minuit, 1962, 139–169.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1969d). Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1970b). “On the Reasons for Indeterminacy of Translation.” Reprinted in Quine (2008a), 209–214.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1970c). “On the Reasons for the Indeterminacy of Translation.” The Journal of Philosophy 67:16, 178–183.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1974b). “Skinner’s Retirement Party.” In Føllesdal and Quine (2008b), 291–292.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1975). “The Pragmatists’ Place in Empiricism.” In Mulvaney and Zeltner, 21–39.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1976). The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays. Rev. and enlarged ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1980). From a Logical Point of View: Nine Logico-Philosophical Essays. 2nd rev. ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1981c). Theories and Things. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1984). “Relativism and Absolutism.” Reprinted in Quine (2008a), 319–322.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1986b). Philosophy of Logic, 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1987). “Indeterminacy of Translation Again.” Reprinted in Quine (2008a), 341–346.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1989). Quiddities: An Intermittently Philosophical Dictionary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1992a). Pursuit of Truth. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1994a). “Comment.” Reprinted as “Comments on Neil Tennant’s ‘Carnap and Quine’” in Dagfinn Follesdal and Douglas B. Quine (2008b), 216–222.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1994b). “Exchange between Donald Davidson and W. V. Quine Following Davidson’s Lecture.” In his (2008b), 152–156.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1994c). “Indeterminacy Without Tears.” Reprinted in Quine (2008a), 447–448.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1995a). From Stimulus to Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (2008a). Confessions of a Confirmed Extensionalist and Other Essays. Ed. Føllesdal, Dagfinn and Quine, Douglas B.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (2008b). Quine in Dialogue. Ed. Føllesdal, Dagfinn and Quine, Douglas B.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. and Carnap, Rudolf. (1990). Dear Carnap, Dear Van. Ed. Creath, Richard. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. and Carnap, Rudolf. Correspondence. Quine Archive, Houghton Library, MS 2587, item 197, box 7.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. and Morris, Charles. Correspondence. Quine Archive, Houghton Library, MS 2587 item 741, box 27; item 547, box 20.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. and Ullian, J. S.. (1978). The Web of Belief, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Google Scholar
Rawling, Piers and Philip and Wilson, eds. (2019). The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Philosophy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reck, Erich, ed. (2013). The Historical Turn in Analytic Philosophy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Reisch, George. (1991). “Did Kuhn Kill Logical Positivism?” Philosophy of Science 58:2, 264–277.Google Scholar
Reck, Erich, ed. (2005). How The Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Alan. (1994). “Carnap’s Principle of Tolerance.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 68: 67–83.Google Scholar
Richardson, Alan. (1997). “Two Dogmas about Logical Empiricism: Carnap and Quine on Logic, Epistemology, and Empiricism.” Philosophical Topics 25:2, 145–168.Google Scholar
Richardson, Alan. (1998). Carnap’s Construction of the World: The Aufbau and the Emergence of Logical Empiricism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Alan. (2003). “Logical Empiricism, American Pragmatism, and the Fate of Scientific Philosophy in North America.” In Hardcastle and Richardson, 1–24.Google Scholar
Richardson, Alan. (2007). “That Sort of Everyday Image of Logical Empiricism: Thomas Kuhn and the Decline of Logical Empiricist Philosophy of Science.” In Richardson and Uebel, 346–370.Google Scholar
Richardson, Alan and Uebel, Thomas, eds. (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ricketts, Thomas. (1982). “Rationality, Translation, and Epistemology Naturalized.” Journal of Philosophy 79:3, 117–136.Google Scholar
Ricketts, Thomas. (2004). “Frege, Carnap, and Quine: Continuities, and Discontinuities.” In Awodey and Klein, 181–202.Google Scholar
Ricketts, Thomas. (2010). “Quine’s Objection and Carnap’s Aufbau.” In Domski and Dickson, 313–331.Google Scholar
Rosen, Gideon. (2014). “Quine and the Revival of Metaphysics.” In Harman and Lepore, 552–70.Google Scholar
Roth, Paul A. (1978). “Paradox and Indeterminacy.” Journal of Philosophy 75:7, 347–367.Google Scholar
Roth, Paul A. (1999). “The Epistemology of ‘Epistemology Naturalized.’” Dialectica 53:2, 87–109.Google Scholar
Roth, Paul A. (2003). “Why There is Nothing Rather than Something: Quine on Behaviorism, Meaning, and Indeterminacy.” In Jacquette, 263–287.Google Scholar
Roth, Paul A. (2008). “Epistemology of Science after Quine.” In Psillos and Curd, 3–14.Google Scholar
Roth, Paul A. (2020). The Philosophical Structure of Historical Explanation. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. (1903/1937). The Principles of Mathematics, 2nd ed. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. (1914/1993). Our Knowledge of the External World As a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. and Wolters, G., eds. (1994). Language, Logic, and the Structure of Scientific Theories. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Schilpp, P. A., ed. (1963). The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, The Library of Living Philosophers. La Salle, IL.: Open Court.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid. (1956). “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind.” In The Foundations of Science and the Concept of Psychology and Psychoanalysis (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 1). Ed. Feigl, H. and Scriven, M.. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 253–329. Reprinted as Sellars, Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind (ed. R. Brandom), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Sharrock, Wes and Read, Rupert. (2002). Kuhn: Philosopher of Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven. (2015). “Kuhn’s Structure: A Moment in Modern Naturalism.” In Devlin and Bokulich, 11–22.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Robert. (2012). “Quine and Conceptual Pragmatism.” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 48:3, 335–355.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Robert. (2016). “On Quine’s Debt to Pragmatism: C. I. Lewis and the Pragmatic A Priori.” In Quine and His Place in History, ed. Kemp, G. and Janssen-Lauret, F.. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 76–99.Google Scholar
Smart, J.C.C. (1969). “Quine’s Philosophy of Science.” In Davidson and Hintikka, 3–13.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. (2003). Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century, Volume I. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. (2009). “Ontology, Analyticity, and Meaning: The Quine–Carnap Dispute.” In Chalmers, Manley, and Wasserman, 424–443.Google Scholar
Stadler, Friedrich, ed. (2010). The Present Situation in the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Stein, Howard. (1992). “Was Carnap Entirely Wrong, After All?” Synthese 93:½, 275–295.Google Scholar
Stich, Stephen and Tobia, Kevin. (2018). “Intuition and Its Critics.” In Stuart, Fehige, and Brown, 369–384.Google Scholar
Stuart, Michael T., Fehige, Yiftach, and Brown, James Robert, eds. (2017). The Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stump, David. (2015). “Alternative Conceptions of the A Priori: Cassirer, Lewis, and Pap.” In his From Conceptual Change and the Philosophy of Science: Alternative Interpretations of the A Priori. New York: Routledge, 90–118.Google Scholar
Tarski, Alfred. (1936). “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages.” In Tarski (1983), 152–277.Google Scholar
Tarski, Alfred. (1944). “The Semantic Conception of Truth: and the Foundations of Semantics.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4:3, 341–376.Google Scholar
Tarski, Alfred. (1983). Logic, Semantics, Meta-Mathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938, 2nd ed., trans. J. H. Woodger, ed. Corcoran, John. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Thomasson, Amie. (2016). “Carnap and the Prospects for Easy Ontology.” In Ontology after Carnap, ed. Blatti, Stephan and Lapointe, Sandra. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 122–144.Google Scholar
Tsou, Jonathan. (2015). “Reconsidering the Carnap–Kuhn Connection.” In Devlin and Bokulich, 51–70.Google Scholar
Turner, Stephen and Risjord, Mark, eds. (2006). Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas. (2001). “Carnap and Neurath in Exile: Can Their Disputes Be Resolved?” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 15:2, 211–220.Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas. (2004). “Carnap, the Left Vienna Circle, and Neopositivist Antimetaphysics.” In Awodey and Klein, 247–277.Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas. (2007a). Empiricism at the Crossroads: The Vienna Circle’s Protocol Sentence Debate. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas. (2007b). “Carnap and the Vienna Circle: Rational Restructionism Refined.” In Friedman and Creath, 129–152.Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas. (2010). “Some Remarks on Current History of Analytical Philosophy of Science.” In Stadler (2010), 13–28.Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas. (2013). “Pragmatics in Carnap and Morris and the Bipartite Metatheory Conception.” Erkenntnis 78:3, 523–546.Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas. (2014). “Carnap’s Aufbau and Physicalism: What does the ‘Mutual Reducibility’ of Psychological and Physical Objects Amount to?” In European Philosophy of Science – Philosophy of Science in Europe and the Viennese Heritage. Ed. Galavotti, M. C., Nemeth, E., and Stadler, F.. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 45–56.Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas. (2016). “Neurath’s Influence on Carnap’s Aufbau.” In Influences on the Aufbau, ed. Damböck, C., Cham: Springer, 51–76.Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas. (2021). “Rejecting the Given: Neurath and Carnap on Methodological Solipsism.” HOPOS 11:2.Google Scholar
Verhaegh, Sander. (2017). “Boarding Neurath’s Boat: The Early Development of Quine’s Naturalism.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 55:2, 317–342.Google Scholar
Verhaegh, Sander. (2018). Working From Within: The Nature and Development of Quine’s Naturalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhaegh, Sander. (2019a). “The Behaviorisms of Skinner and Quine: Genesis, Development, and Mutual Influence.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 57:4, 707–730.Google Scholar
Verhaegh, Sander. (2019b). “Sign and Object: Quine’s Forgotten Book Project.” Synthese 196:12, 5038–5060.Google Scholar
Verhaegh, Sander. (2020a). “The American Reception of Logical Positivism: First Encounters (1929–1932).” HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 10:1, 106–142.Google Scholar
Verhaegh, Sander. (2020b). “Coming to America: Carnap, Reichenbach, and the Great Intellectual Migration. Part I: Rudolf Carnap.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 8:11, 1–23.Google Scholar
Verhaegh, Sander. (2020c). “Coming to America: Carnap, Reichenbach, and the Great Intellectual Migration. Part II: Hans Reichenbach.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 8:11, 24–47.Google Scholar
Von Foerster, Heinz and Poerksen, Bernhard. (2002). Understanding Systems: Conversations on Epistemology and Ethics. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Wagner, Pierre, ed. (2009). Carnap’s Logical Syntax of Language. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wagner, Pierre, ed. (2012). Carnap’s Ideal of Explication and Naturalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
White, Morton. (1950). “The Analytic and the Synthetic: an Untenable Dualism.” In John Dewey: Philosophy of Science and Freedom. Ed. Hook, Sidney. New York: The Dial Press, 316–330.Google Scholar
White, Morton. (1999). A Philosopher’s Story. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. (2014). “How Did We Get Here from There? The Transformation of Analytic Philosophy.” Belgrade Philosophical Annual 27, 7–37.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. (2015). Modal Logic as Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1922/1990). Tractatus Logico-philosophicus. Trans. C. K. Ogden. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1958). Philosophical Investigations, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1979). Wittgenstein’s Lectures 1932–1935. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Yablo, Stephen. (1998). “Does Ontology Rest on a Mistake?” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Supplementary Volume 72: 229–261.Google Scholar