Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:10:57.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feminism and Carnap's Principle of Tolerance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Audrey Yap
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The logical empiricists often appear as a foil for feminist theories. Their emphasis on the individualistic nature of knowledge and on the value-neutrality of science seems directly opposed to most feminist concerns. However, several recent works have highlighted aspects of Carnap's views that make him seem like much less of a straightforwardly positivist thinker. Certain of these aspects lend themselves to feminist concerns much more than the stereotypical picture would imply.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , Spring 2010 , pp. 437 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by Audrey Yap

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antony, L. 1993. Quine as feminist: The radical import of naturalized epistemology. In A mind of one's own: Feminist essays on reason and objectivity, ed. Antony, L. and Witt, C.Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, pp. 185–225.Google Scholar
Ayim, M. 1995. Passing through the needle's eye: Can a feminist teach logic? Argumentation 9:801–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. 1937/2002. The logical syntax of language. Trans. Amethe Smeaton. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1956. Empiricism, semantics, and ontology. In Meaning and necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 205–21.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1963. Intellectual autobiography. In The library of living philosophers XI: The philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, ed. Schlipp, Paul A.Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, pp. 3–84.Google Scholar
DeVidi, D., and Solomon, G. 1995. Tolerance and metalanguages in Carnap's Logical syntax of language. Synthese 103:123–39.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, S., and King, R. 1998. Gender‐based language reform and the social construction of meaning. In The feminist critique of language: A reader, ed. Cameron, D.London: Routledge, pp. 164–79.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1988. Logical truth and analyticity in Carnap's Logical syntax of language. In History and philosophy of modern mathematics, ed. Aspray, W. and Kitcher, P.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 82–94.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1997. Philosophical naturalism. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 71 (2): 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. 1999a. Geometry, convention, and the relativized a priori. In Reconsidering logical positivism, ed. Reichenbach, , Schlick, , and Carnap, . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. 1999b. Tolerance and analyticity in Carnap's philosophy of mathematics. In Reconsidering logical positivism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 183–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimbel, S. 2002. Politics and the wissenschaftliche Weltanschauung: Neurath and Reichenbach on science and socialism. In Siblings under the skin: Feminism, social justice and analytic philosophy, ed. Clough, S.Aurora, Colo.: The Davies Group, Publishers, pp. 13–37.Google Scholar
Hintikka, M. B., and Hintikka, J. 1983. How can language be sexist? In Discovering reality, ed. Harding, S. and Hintikka, M.B.Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 139–48.Google Scholar
Longino, H. 1983. Beyond “bad science”: Skeptical reflections on the value‐freedom of scientific inquiry. Science, Technology, and Human Values 8 (1): 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorde, A. 1984. The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. In Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Freedom, Calif.: The Crossing Press, pp. 110–13.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. 1996. Empiricism without dogmas. In Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science, ed. Nelson, L. and Nelson, J.Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, A. 1990. Words of power: A feminist reading of the history of logic. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Okruhlik, K. 2004. Logical empiricism, feminism, and Neurath's auxiliary motive. Hypatia 19 (1): 48–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. 1953. Two dogmas of empiricism. In From a logical point of view. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 20–46.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. 1997. Two dogmas about logical empiricism: Carnap and Quine on logic, epistemology, and empiricism. Philosophical Topics 25 (2): 145–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, A. 1998. Carnap's construction of the world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. 2007. Carnapian pragmatism. In The Cambridge companion to Carnap, ed. Friedman, M. and Creath, R.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricketts, T. 2004. Frege, Carnap, and Quine: Continuities and discontinuities. In Carnap brought home: The view from Jena, ed. Awodey, S. and Klein, C.Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, pp. 181–202.Google Scholar
Spender, D. 1998. Extracts from Man made language. In The feminist critique of language: A reader, ed. Cameron, D.London: Routledge, pp. 93–99.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. 1956. Language, mind, and reality. In Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ed. Carroll, J.B.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 246–70.Google Scholar