I. Introduction

Background of Empiricism

• Empiricism is a philosophical tradition that emphasizes the role of experience, particularly sensory experience, in the formation of knowledge.
• Originated in ancient Greece with philosophers like Aristotle, who believed that knowledge comes from experience and observation.
• Developed further during the early modern period with philosophers such as John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.
  • John Locke: Proposed the idea of the mind as a “tabula rasa” or blank slate, which is shaped by experience.
  • George Berkeley: Advocated for “idealism,” the view that all knowledge is based on mental perceptions and ideas.
  • David Hume: Argued for a strict empiricism, emphasizing the role of experience in forming beliefs and knowledge.
• Empiricism is often contrasted with rationalism, which emphasizes the role of reason and innate ideas in the formation of knowledge.

Overview of Quine and Strawson’s Critiques

• Willard Van Orman Quine and Peter Frederick Strawson were two influential 20th-century philosophers who critiqued the empiricist tradition.
• Both philosophers challenged the analytic-synthetic distinction, a central tenet of empiricism.
  • Analytic-synthetic distinction: The distinction between statements that are true by virtue of their meaning alone (analytic) and statements that are true by virtue of their correspondence to empirical facts (synthetic).
• Quine and Strawson’s critiques of empiricism have had a significant impact on contemporary philosophy, leading to new approaches and debates in epistemology and metaphysics.
• This module provides an introduction to the background of empiricism and an overview of Quine and Strawson’s critiques, setting the stage for a detailed examination of their arguments and the implications for the empiricist tradition.

II. Willard Van Orman Quine

Biography and Philosophical Background

• Willard Van Orman Quine (1908-2000) was an American philosopher and logician known for his contributions to epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language.
• Studied at Oberlin College and Harvard University, where he earned his Ph.D. under the supervision of Alfred North Whitehead.
• Influenced by logical positivism, a philosophical movement that sought to ground knowledge in empirical observation and logical analysis.
• Developed a holistic approach to language and knowledge, emphasizing the interconnectedness of our beliefs and the role of empirical evidence in shaping our understanding of the world.

Quine’s Critique of the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction

“Two Dogmas of Empiricism”

• In his influential paper “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” (1951), Quine criticized two central tenets of the empiricist tradition:
  1. The analytic-synthetic distinction
  2. The belief in the reduction of all meaningful statements to immediate experience
• Quine argued that the analytic-synthetic distinction is untenable because it relies on an arbitrary and unclear distinction between meaning and fact.
• He claimed that our beliefs form a “web of belief” in which individual statements cannot be isolated and evaluated independently of their connections to other beliefs.

The Indeterminacy of Translation

• Quine introduced the concept of the indeterminacy of translation to challenge the idea that there is a unique, determinate meaning for each linguistic expression.
• He argued that there is no objective way to determine the correct translation of a sentence from one language to another, as different translations can be equally compatible with the available evidence.
• This indeterminacy undermines the idea that there is a fixed, objective meaning for each linguistic expression, further challenging the analytic-synthetic distinction.

The Inscrutability of Reference

• Quine also introduced the concept of the inscrutability of reference to argue that there is no objective way to determine the referents of individual words or phrases.
• He claimed that different ways of assigning referents to words can be equally compatible with the available evidence, leading to an indeterminacy in reference.
• This inscrutability further undermines the idea that there is a fixed, objective meaning for each linguistic expression and challenges the analytic-synthetic distinction.

Quine’s Naturalized Epistemology

Rejection of the Traditional Epistemological Project

• Quine rejected the traditional epistemological project, which sought to justify our beliefs by grounding them in a foundation of certain, indubitable knowledge.
• He argued that this project is misguided because it relies on an untenable distinction between analytic and synthetic statements and fails to recognize the holistic nature of our beliefs.
• Instead, Quine proposed a naturalized epistemology that focuses on understanding the processes by which we acquire and revise our beliefs in light of empirical evidence.

The Role of Science in Understanding Knowledge

• Quine believed that the best way to understand knowledge is through the methods of empirical science, rather than through philosophical analysis or introspection.
• He argued that our beliefs are shaped by our experiences and that the process of acquiring and revising our beliefs is a continuous, ongoing process that is subject to empirical investigation.
• Quine’s naturalized epistemology emphasizes the importance of empirical evidence and the methods of science in understanding the nature of knowledge and the processes by which we acquire it.

III. Peter Frederick Strawson

Biography and Philosophical Background

• Peter Frederick Strawson (1919-2006) was a British philosopher, known for his contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of language.
• Studied at the University of Oxford, where he later became a professor.
• Associated with the “ordinary language philosophy” movement, which emphasized the importance of analyzing everyday language to understand philosophical concepts.
• Influenced by philosophers such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, J.L. Austin, and Gilbert Ryle.

Strawson’s Critique of the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction

“On Referring”

• In his influential paper “On Referring” (1950), Strawson challenges the analytic-synthetic distinction by examining the nature of reference in language.
• Criticizes Bertrand Russell’s “theory of descriptions,” which claims that sentences containing definite descriptions (e.g., “the present king of France”) are meaningful even if they do not refer to any existing object.
• Strawson argues that Russell’s theory fails to account for the way language is actually used, and that sentences containing definite descriptions can be meaningful without being either true or false.

The Distinction Between Referring and Predicating

• Strawson introduces a distinction between referring expressions (e.g., proper names, definite descriptions) and predicative expressions (e.g., adjectives, verbs).
• Referring expressions are used to pick out specific objects, while predicative expressions are used to attribute properties to those objects.
• Strawson argues that the analytic-synthetic distinction is problematic because it assumes that all meaningful sentences must be either true or false, which is not the case for sentences containing referring expressions that do not refer to any existing object.

The Role of Presuppositions in Language

• Strawson emphasizes the importance of presuppositions in understanding language and meaning.
• Presuppositions are background assumptions that must be in place for a sentence to be meaningful or have a truth value.
• For example, the sentence “The present king of France is bald” presupposes that there is a present king of France.
• Strawson argues that the analytic-synthetic distinction fails to account for the role of presuppositions in determining the meaning and truth value of sentences.

Strawson’s Descriptive Metaphysics

The Concept of a “Person”

• In his book “Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics” (1959), Strawson develops a new approach to metaphysics, which he calls “descriptive metaphysics.”
• Descriptive metaphysics aims to describe the most fundamental concepts and categories that structure our thinking about the world, as opposed to “revisionary metaphysics,” which seeks to replace these concepts with more precise or scientifically grounded alternatives.
• One of the central concepts in Strawson’s descriptive metaphysics is the concept of a “person,” which he argues is a basic category of our understanding of the world.
• According to Strawson, persons are unique in that they are both subjects of experience (i.e., they have mental states) and objects of experience (i.e., they have physical properties).

The Importance of Ordinary Language in Understanding Metaphysics

• Strawson’s descriptive metaphysics is closely tied to his emphasis on the importance of ordinary language in understanding philosophical concepts.
• He argues that by analyzing the way we use language in everyday contexts, we can gain insight into the fundamental concepts and categories that structure our thinking about the world.
• This approach stands in contrast to more abstract or technical approaches to metaphysics, which often rely on specialized terminology and formal logic.
• Strawson’s emphasis on ordinary language has been influential in shaping subsequent debates in metaphysics and the philosophy of language.

IV. Quine and Strawson: Points of Agreement

Critique of the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction

• Both Quine and Strawson challenged the analytic-synthetic distinction, a central tenet of empiricism.
  • Recall that the analytic-synthetic distinction differentiates between statements that are true by virtue of their meaning alone (analytic) and statements that are true by virtue of their correspondence to empirical facts (synthetic).
• Quine’s critique focused on the indeterminacy of translation and the inscrutability of reference, which undermined the idea of fixed, objective meanings for linguistic expressions.
• Strawson’s critique, as discussed in “On Referring,” questioned the distinction by examining the role of presuppositions in language and the distinction between referring and predicating.

Rejection of the Traditional Epistemological Project

• Both philosophers rejected the traditional epistemological project, which sought to ground knowledge in a foundation of certain, indubitable knowledge.
  • Quine proposed a naturalized epistemology that emphasized the role of empirical evidence and the methods of science in understanding knowledge.
  • Strawson, while not explicitly endorsing naturalized epistemology, also moved away from the traditional project by focusing on descriptive metaphysics and the role of ordinary language in understanding metaphysics.

The Importance of Language in Understanding Metaphysics

• Quine and Strawson both recognized the importance of language in understanding metaphysics and the nature of knowledge.
  • Quine’s holistic approach to language and knowledge emphasized the interconnectedness of our beliefs and the role of empirical evidence in shaping our understanding of the world.
  • Strawson’s focus on ordinary language and descriptive metaphysics highlighted the significance of linguistic practices in shaping our metaphysical understanding.
• Despite their differences in approach, both philosophers agreed that a careful examination of language is crucial for understanding metaphysics and the nature of knowledge.

V. Quine and Strawson: Points of Disagreement

Naturalized Epistemology vs. Descriptive Metaphysics

• While both Quine and Strawson critiqued the analytic-synthetic distinction and the traditional epistemological project, they proposed different alternatives to address these issues.
• Quine’s naturalized epistemology:
  • Emphasizes the role of empirical science in understanding knowledge and the processes by which we acquire and revise our beliefs.
  • Rejects the idea of a foundational, indubitable basis for knowledge, focusing instead on the holistic nature of our beliefs and the role of empirical evidence in shaping them.
• Strawson’s descriptive metaphysics:
  • Focuses on understanding the structure of our conceptual framework and the ways in which it shapes our understanding of the world.
  • Emphasizes the importance of ordinary language in revealing the underlying structure of our thoughts and beliefs.
  • Does not prioritize empirical science as the primary means of understanding knowledge, but rather seeks to uncover the conceptual structures that underlie our understanding of the world.

The Role of Science in Understanding Knowledge

• Quine and Strawson also disagreed on the role of science in understanding knowledge and the nature of reality.
• Quine:
  • Believed that empirical science is the best means of understanding knowledge and the world, as it provides a systematic and rigorous method for acquiring and revising our beliefs.
  • Argued that philosophical analysis should be informed by and grounded in the methods and findings of empirical science.
• Strawson:
  • While acknowledging the importance of science, he did not believe that it should be the sole or primary means of understanding knowledge and reality.
  • Emphasized the role of ordinary language and our everyday conceptual framework in shaping our understanding of the world, suggesting that philosophical analysis should focus on these aspects rather than solely on empirical science.

The Concept of a “Person” (table)

Quine	Strawson
Quine did not place significant emphasis on the concept of a “person” in his philosophical work.	Strawson developed a detailed account of the concept of a “person” as a central aspect of his descriptive metaphysics.
Focused on the holistic nature of our beliefs and the role of empirical evidence in shaping our understanding of the world, rather than on specific concepts like “person.”	Argued that the concept of a “person” is fundamental to our understanding of the world and our place in it, and that it reveals important aspects of our conceptual framework.
Did not provide a detailed account of the nature of persons or their role in our understanding of the world.	Proposed that persons are entities that have both physical and mental attributes, and that our understanding of persons is shaped by our ordinary language and conceptual framework.

VI. Criticisms of Quine’s Critique of Empiricism

Responses to the Indeterminacy of Translation

• Quine’s indeterminacy of translation has been met with various criticisms and responses.
• Donald Davidson: Argued that the indeterminacy of translation is not as radical as Quine suggests, as there are constraints on interpretation that can help determine the correct translation.
  • Davidson’s principle of charity: Assumes that speakers are largely rational and consistent in their beliefs, which can help guide the interpretation of their utterances.
• Jerry Fodor: Criticized the indeterminacy of translation by arguing that there must be some level of determinacy in the mental representations underlying language.
  • Fodor’s language of thought hypothesis: Suggests that there is a universal, innate mental language that provides a determinate structure for linguistic expressions.

The Role of the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction in Contemporary Philosophy

• Despite Quine’s critique, the analytic-synthetic distinction continues to play a role in contemporary philosophy.
• Some philosophers argue that the distinction can be maintained by appealing to different criteria, such as the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge.
  • A priori knowledge: Knowledge that is independent of experience, often associated with analytic statements.
  • A posteriori knowledge: Knowledge that is dependent on experience, often associated with synthetic statements.
• Others argue that the distinction can be preserved by focusing on the role of meaning and reference in determining the truth of statements, rather than relying on the problematic notion of analyticity.

The Viability of Naturalized Epistemology

• Quine’s naturalized epistemology has also faced criticisms and challenges.
• Some philosophers argue that naturalized epistemology is insufficient for addressing the normative aspects of epistemology, such as the justification of beliefs and the evaluation of knowledge claims.
  • Normative epistemology: Concerned with the standards and criteria for evaluating knowledge claims and justifying beliefs.
• Others argue that naturalized epistemology is not a genuine alternative to traditional epistemology, as it still relies on philosophical assumptions and methods.
  • For example, the reliance on empirical evidence and the methods of science in understanding knowledge can be seen as a philosophical commitment rather than a purely empirical approach.

VII. Criticisms of Strawson’s Critique of Empiricism

Responses to Strawson’s Critique of the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction

• Strawson’s critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction has been met with various responses from philosophers who defend the distinction or propose alternative ways of understanding it.
• Some philosophers argue that Strawson’s critique is based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the distinction, and that a more nuanced understanding of analytic and synthetic statements can address his concerns.
  • For example, some philosophers propose a distinction between “deep” and “shallow” analytic statements, where deep analytic statements are those that reveal substantive truths about the world, while shallow analytic statements are merely true by definition.
• Others argue that the distinction can be maintained by focusing on the role of linguistic conventions and the way they determine the meaning and truth conditions of sentences.

The Role of Ordinary Language in Metaphysics

• Strawson’s emphasis on ordinary language in metaphysics has been both praised and criticized by philosophers.
• Supporters of ordinary language philosophy argue that it provides a more accurate and grounded understanding of metaphysical concepts by focusing on the way they are used in everyday contexts.
• Critics, however, argue that ordinary language can be misleading or imprecise when it comes to understanding complex metaphysical issues, and that a more abstract or technical approach is necessary to make progress in metaphysics.
  • For example, some philosophers argue that ordinary language is ill-suited to address questions about the nature of time, space, or causation, which require a more rigorous and systematic approach.

The Viability of Descriptive Metaphysics

• The viability of Strawson’s descriptive metaphysics has also been a subject of debate among philosophers.
• Supporters of descriptive metaphysics argue that it provides a valuable framework for understanding the fundamental concepts and categories that structure our thinking about the world, and that it can help to clarify and resolve metaphysical disputes.
• Critics, on the other hand, argue that descriptive metaphysics is too conservative or limited in its scope, and that it fails to engage with the more radical or revisionary possibilities that metaphysics can explore.
  • For example, some philosophers argue that descriptive metaphysics is unable to address questions about the nature of possible worlds, abstract objects, or the multiverse, which require a more speculative or imaginative approach to metaphysics.
• Despite these criticisms, Strawson’s descriptive metaphysics has had a lasting impact on the field, and his emphasis on ordinary language and the concept of a “person” continue to shape debates in metaphysics and the philosophy of language.

VIII. The Legacy of Quine and Strawson’s Critiques

The Impact on Contemporary Philosophy

• Quine and Strawson’s critiques of empiricism have had a significant impact on the development of contemporary philosophy, particularly in the areas of epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language.
• Their challenges to the analytic-synthetic distinction and the traditional epistemological project have led to new approaches and debates in these fields.
• For example, their critiques have contributed to the development of various post-empiricist epistemologies, such as externalism, reliabilism, and virtue epistemology.
• In metaphysics, their emphasis on the importance of language and ordinary linguistic practices has influenced the development of theories like semantic externalism and the causal theory of reference.

The Ongoing Debate Over Empiricism and Its Alternatives

• Quine and Strawson’s critiques have not led to the complete abandonment of empiricism, but rather to a reevaluation and refinement of its core principles.
• Some philosophers have sought to defend the analytic-synthetic distinction and the traditional epistemological project, while others have developed alternative approaches that incorporate elements of both empiricism and rationalism.
• The ongoing debate over empiricism and its alternatives reflects the enduring influence of Quine and Strawson’s critiques and the continued relevance of their insights for contemporary philosophy.

The Influence on Subsequent Philosophers

• Quine and Strawson’s critiques have influenced a wide range of subsequent philosophers, both directly and indirectly.
• For example, their critiques have shaped the work of philosophers like Donald Davidson, Hilary Putnam, and Saul Kripke, who have developed new theories of meaning, reference, and knowledge in response to the challenges posed by Quine and Strawson.
• Additionally, their critiques have inspired philosophers working in other areas, such as ethics, political philosophy, and the philosophy of mind, to reconsider the role of language and the nature of knowledge in their respective fields.
• The enduring influence of Quine and Strawson’s critiques on subsequent philosophers attests to the significance of their contributions to the ongoing development of philosophical thought.

IX. Alternative Approaches to Empiricism

The Revival of Neo-Empiricism

• In response to the critiques of Quine and Strawson, some philosophers have sought to revive and refine the empiricist tradition, leading to the development of neo-empiricism.
• Neo-empiricism aims to address the challenges posed by Quine and Strawson by offering a more nuanced understanding of the analytic-synthetic distinction and the role of experience in the formation of knowledge.
• Key figures in the neo-empiricist movement include philosophers such as W.V.O. Quine’s student, Hilary Putnam, and Bas van Fraassen.
  • Hilary Putnam: Developed a “semantic externalism” that emphasizes the role of the external world in determining the meaning of linguistic expressions, while still maintaining a role for the analytic-synthetic distinction.
  • Bas van Fraassen: Advocated for “constructive empiricism,” which emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in shaping scientific theories, without committing to the existence of unobservable entities.

The Rise of Pragmatism and its Relation to Empiricism

• Another alternative approach to empiricism is pragmatism, a philosophical movement that originated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with philosophers such as Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey.
• Pragmatism emphasizes the practical consequences of beliefs and theories, rather than their correspondence to an independent reality.
• While pragmatism shares some similarities with empiricism, such as the emphasis on experience and observation, it differs in its focus on the practical utility of beliefs and theories.
• Contemporary pragmatists, such as Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnam, have sought to develop a more inclusive and flexible approach to empiricism that incorporates insights from both the empiricist and pragmatist traditions.

The Development of Post-Empiricist Epistemologies

• In response to the critiques of Quine and Strawson, as well as the developments in neo-empiricism and pragmatism, some philosophers have sought to develop new, post-empiricist epistemologies.
• Post-empiricist epistemologies aim to move beyond the traditional debates between empiricism and rationalism by incorporating insights from both traditions, as well as from other areas of philosophy, such as phenomenology and hermeneutics.
• Key figures in the development of post-empiricist epistemologies include philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Michel Foucault.
  • Thomas Kuhn: Developed the concept of “paradigms” in the philosophy of science, which emphasizes the role of historical and social factors in shaping scientific knowledge and challenges the idea of a fixed, objective reality.
  • Paul Feyerabend: Advocated for “epistemological anarchism,” which rejects the idea of a single, universal method for acquiring knowledge and emphasizes the importance of diverse approaches and perspectives.
  • Michel Foucault: Explored the historical and social construction of knowledge, emphasizing the role of power relations in shaping our understanding of the world.

These alternative approaches to empiricism demonstrate the ongoing relevance and influence of the critiques of Quine and Strawson, as well as the continued development and evolution of the empiricist tradition in contemporary philosophy.

X. Conclusion

Summary of Quine and Strawson’s Critiques

• Quine and Strawson both critiqued the empiricist tradition, challenging the analytic-synthetic distinction and the traditional epistemological project.
• Quine’s critique focused on the indeterminacy of translation and the inscrutability of reference, which undermined the idea of fixed, objective meanings for linguistic expressions.
• Strawson’s critique, as discussed in “On Referring,” questioned the distinction by examining the role of presuppositions in language and the distinction between referring and predicating.
• Both philosophers proposed alternative approaches to understanding knowledge and metaphysics, with Quine advocating for naturalized epistemology and Strawson developing descriptive metaphysics.

The Ongoing Relevance of Their Critiques in Contemporary Philosophy

• Quine and Strawson’s critiques continue to be relevant in contemporary philosophy, shaping debates in epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language.
• Their challenges to the analytic-synthetic distinction and the traditional epistemological project have led to the development of various post-empiricist epistemologies and alternative approaches to metaphysics.
• The ongoing debate over empiricism and its alternatives reflects the enduring influence of Quine and Strawson’s critiques and the continued relevance of their insights for contemporary philosophy.

1. Analyze the implications of Quine’s indeterminacy of translation and inscrutability of reference for the analytic-synthetic distinction. (250 words)
2. Compare and contrast Quine’s naturalized epistemology with Strawson’s descriptive metaphysics, highlighting their key differences and potential implications for understanding knowledge. (250 words)
3. Discuss the role of ordinary language in Strawson’s critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction and its significance for the development of descriptive metaphysics. (250 words)