1

Carnap distinguished two ways in which the words “There are or exist external or physical things” might be taken. On one interpretation these words simply express a proposition which is an obvious truism, a trivial consequence of hosts of propositions, like Moore’s “Here are two hands,” which are ordinarily taken, and in a sense correctly taken, to be empirically verified, to be established by and in sense-experience.

[P. F. Strawson, Scepticism and Naturalism: Some Varieties]

I was a bit confused when reading the above paragraph. I don't understand what the word "taken" in "which are ordinarily taken, and in a sense correctly taken" means. Does it mean "understood" or is it attached to "to be empirically verified, to be established by and in sense-experience" to become "taken to be..."?

Improve this question
4
  • 4
    As you say, it means 'understood', or perhaps 'reacted to'. In the second usage, it is attached to both 'emprically verified', and 'established', because "to be empirically verified" and "to be established by and in sense-experience" mean the same thing.
    – Weather Vane
    Commented Feb 26 at 15:07
  • 1
    Just so you know, this sort of academic writing is hard to process for native speakers, too. Not to be rude, but it takes many words to say not so much and sound important at the same time.
    – Yosef Baskin
    Commented Feb 26 at 15:22
  • The author explains how they might have been taken. But whatever way it was understood does not change the meaning of: to take something some way.
    – Lambie
    Commented Feb 26 at 15:47
  • I take it that you've never encountered this usage before. Note that the object doesn't have to be "it", and the meaning is more "assume, presume" than "understand", but those are trivial points.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Feb 26 at 19:54

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
  1. Yes, you're right, "taken" in this sense is similar to "understood."
  2. And yes, it's also attached to "to be empirically verified" despite the interrupting phrase "and in a sense...."

Let's build the sentence back up from a simpler structure:

  • These words express a trivial consequence of hosts of propositions which are ordinarily taken to be empirically verified. —These words (There are or exist external or physical things) are usually understood as talking about things we can prove with our own experience.
  • ... which are ordinarily taken to be empirically verified, to be established by and in sense-experience. —Here, the author wants to add another "version" of the last phrase to illustrate it more.
  • ...which are ordinarily taken, and in a sense correctly taken, to be empirically verified, to be established by and in sense-experience. —The author adds their own comment that this understanding is correct. And then adds the disclaimer that it's correct only "in a sense."

Using a similar sentence structure with simpler words might be something like:

The car was driven, and driven quite rapidly, by an experienced driver.

The verb "driven" still connects to "by an...", as if the interrupting phrase never happened.

Improve this answer
1
  • Thank you for clearing up my confusion.
    – XVI
    Commented Feb 26 at 15:21

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .