Abstract
A distinction often drawn is one between conservative versus revisionary conceptions of philosophical analysis with respect to commonsensical beliefs and intuitions. This paper offers a comparative investigation of two revisionary methods: Carnapian explication and ameliorative analysis as developed by S. Haslanger. It is argued that they have a number of common features, and in particular that they share a crucial political dimension: they both have the potential to serve as instrument for social reform. Indeed, they may produce improved versions of key concepts of everyday life, for example those pertaining to social categories such as gender and race (among others), which in turn may lead to social change. The systematic comparison of these two frameworks offered here, where similarities as well as differences are discussed, is likely to provide useful guidance to practitioners of both approaches, as it will highlight important aspects of each of them that tend to remain implicit and under-theorized in existing applications of these methodologies to specific questions.
Highlights
In recent years, discussions on philosophical methodology have become intensified, arguably in response to the challenges posed by the surge of experimental approaches
This paper offers a comparative investigation of two revisionary methods: Carnapian explication and ameliorative analysis as developed by S
Carnap (1950) does not explicitly say that different purposes and goals may be addressed in an explication; the pragmatic component is alluded to with the umbrella term ‘fruitfulness’. He seems to imply that fruitfulness is an absolute concept rather than one relative to different purposes and goals one may have. [Later, in Carnap (1963), he is more explicit on the plurality of goals and purposes that may be addressed by an explication. He no longer speaks of fruitfulness in this later text.] In contrast, Haslanger very clearly states that ameliorative analysis is a two-tiered process that starts with a thorough, critical examination of one’s purposes, and proceeds to reformulate a concept in view of the purposes previously established
Summary
Throughout his career, Carnap developed a number of constructed formal systems, as early as in Der logische Aufbau der Welt (1928) and Logische Syntax der Sprache (1934). Is one of Carnap’s earlier formulations of the idea of explication, from Meaning and Necessity: The task of making more exact a vague or not quite exact concept used in everyday life or in an earlier stage of scientific or logical development, or rather of replacing it by a newly constructed, more exact concept, belongs among the most important tasks of logical analysis and logical construction. Ideals that have been put forward by a wide range of authors (with varying degrees of success), what matters for us here is the idea that, for Carnap, exactness is not an end an sich; it is an instrument, a means to an end, or to a variety of specific ends as the case may be This brings us directly to the third, arguably most important requirement for a Carnapian explication: it must be fruitful. I further argue that fruitfulness may be understood in political terms, i.e. in terms of promoting much-needed social reform and liberation from obscurantism ( agreeing with the main lines of Carus’ interpretation)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
