The Logical Structure of the World and Pseudoproblems in Philosophy

by Rudolf Carnap, Rolf A. George (Translator)

Available for the first time in 20 years, here are two important works from the 1920s by the best-known representative of the Vienna Circle. In The Logical Structure of the World, Carnap adopts the position of “methodological solipsism” and shows that it is possible to describe the world from the immediate data of experience. In his Pseudoproblems in Philosophy, he asserts that many philosophical problems are meaningless.

Genres: Philosophy, Logic, Nonfiction, Metaphysics, Science, Reference, Classics

364 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1928

About the author

Rudolf Carnap, a German-born philosopher and naturalized U.S. citizen, was a leading exponent of logical positivism and was one of the major philosophers of the twentieth century. He made significant contributions to philosophy of science, philosophy of language, the theory of probability, inductive logic and modal logic. He rejected metaphysics as meaningless because metaphysical statements cannot be proved or disproved by experience. He asserted that many philosophical problems are indeed pseudo-problems, the outcome of a misuse of language.

Read more : http://www.iep.utm.edu/carnap/

Reviews

[Michal Lipták · Rating 3 out of 5]

With hindsight it's a heroic failure, of course. But I'm intrigued in how closely aligned this so-called analytical philosophy was with so-called continental philosophy at the inception of divide. Carnap here is heavily indebted to Husserl, to the point that Verena Mayer accuses Carnap of plagiarising (then still unpublished) Ideen II, the lectures related to which Carnap was attending at the time. Although an entertaining claim, it's overblown, but you see the point.

Indeed, Carnap himself references Husserl at crucial points. Carnap selects "autopsychological basis", that is, "my experiences" as lowest constructional stratum, as starting point. He proclaims to apply ἐποχή in this case, thereby ensuring that autopsychological basis doesn't lay undue claims - this is indeed very similar to Husserl's approach to transcendental subjectivity. Carnap's differentiating between my body as vantage point and my body as object brings Husserl's famous distinction of Leib and Körper to mind. And both share crucial belief that there are regularities in a way we think, form judgments, and therefore contingencies related to "my" or "your experiences" can be somehow neutralized. In short, both try to show how science is possible.

The differences are likewise crucial, though. Husserl's approach is regressive - he descends to some low stratum (for example, natural attitude in Ideen I, pure passive perception in Analysen, which were developed in Logik, and so on) and then retraces his steps back to the higher meaning formations, which are usually predicative judgments, but can involve cultural objects such as in Phenomenological Psychology. Carnap's approach is progressive - he isolates within autopsychological realm certain basis relations and, as he announces in the title, construes higher meaning formations out of them. Before that, he completely formalizes the lowest constructional basis, strips it of any content so that, indeed, concepts literally are things (there is strong reminiscence of "atomic facts" of Tractatus here). This groundwork operation is the most thrilling here. However, when he comes to upper levels - cultural objects, values, and even intersubjectivity - he's still implicitly bound by common notions which he otherwise professes to eschew, and the constructional process offers only trivial insights, with only vague promise of providing thorough constructional account "in principle".

The difference finally comes to relief in the latter part, where Carnap basically criticizes Husserl for notions of "self" and "intentionality". While "my body" is a vantage point in constructional account, once such account is finished there's no room for self, or transcendental self, or anything like that. More painfully for Husserl, there's not reason to think "intentionality" is an irreducible relation, at the basis it's just relation between certain types of objects, but still reducible to basic relations.

This is actually central point of contention - whether we can, as Carnap hopes, get completely disembodied, disembedded, eschewing even our vantage point - or, as Husserl claims, we can't. If latter is true, it doesn't follow that free-for-all subjectivism is introduced to wreak havoc in sciences, it only means that there's ultimately some amount of contingency we won't ever get rid off, that investigations are ultimately endless. Husserl subscribes to this view, but for him this doesn't make science impossible, he precisely tries to prove that science is indeed possible under such conditions.

Carnap is correct that this point of contention involves, indeed, metaphysical questions. But there are good reasons to reject Carnap's approach. First reason concerns the fruits of each approach - now, some 100 years later, we know that whenever positivism encountered, for example, cultural objects or values, it referred us to infinite to-do list of sciences, waiting for complete brainscan disclosing "basic relations", and so on - while phenomenology continued to provide valuable, novel insights. Secondly, this project of logical positivism normatively asks too much - it asks nothing less than getting rid of language as medium. Rather than understanding language as mediating experiences, Carnap wants to present it as duplicating experiences - that is, he actually wants to imagine language as that Borgesian map which is the territory. Carnap ends the main text with Wittgenstein's prescriptive quote: Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen. And we know that Wittgenstein later turned into investigating language as medium for good reasons (although results vary, I'd suggest some inspiration from phenomenology which had it right earlier would have helped). Carnap remained stuck in his view, which is indeed heroic, but wrong. Phenomenological approach is actually more modest and more thorough - not prescribing anything such drastic, but approaching language as it is. That doesn't mean mediating errors, incorrect use of terminology, and so on - on contrary, phenomenology aspires to radical clarification. But in the end the fact that language is mediation, not reflection or duplication, remains as something that cannot be eschewed - and that's only different way of saying that intentionality is irreducible.

Nonetheless, I can imagine Carnap having some kind of renaissance in age of computers, since indeed the construction of lowest strata is the most thrilling part here - one finds nothing such painstaking in Husserl. It seems that Reza Negarestani tries to do something like that in Intelligence and Spirit, although a friend I trust is not thrilled by the result. But it also seems that current AI is not operating with simple additive computation, endless chains of endless sentences, and that it is modelled already on more complex way of thinking - and, for example, in On the Existence of Digital Objects, Yuk Hui once again finds Husserl a much better guide. And so Carnap still seems more like historically-conditioned utopian dream. One may want to keep it in mind for a following decade, though.

[Illiterate · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Aufbau is pioneering as a logical explication of science based on relations and structure. Part 5 is still particularly lively and thought provoking.

[Tim Landström · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is exemplary of how philosophy should be done. Extremely clear and well written, with large parts dedicated to defining concepts and giving examples of how these are to be used. I think it’s so well written in fact, that even someone with minimal background in philosophy would be able to understand it due to its clarity and explicitness.

The goal of the book is to give an outline of a constructional system. To show that from certain basic elements (Carnap suggests “elementary experiences”) and certain basic relations (“recognition of similarity”) together with logic, all objects of science can be “constructed”. That is, be given a definition that consists only of these basic elements and relations. It follows from this, that all statements of science can be transformed into statements consisting only of the “given”.

The outline of the constructional system given in the book (with an autopsychological basis) is only a suggestion, and one of several possible systems (using different basic elements and relations, with their own advantages and shortcomings). The point is not to provide one true or complete constructional system, but merely to show that such a system is in principle possible. And that a reduction of all scientific statements into statements about basic elements and relations can in theory be done (even if doing so in practice might be extremely cumbersome).

The book also includes “Pseudoproblems in philosophy” which is an exposition of some standard talking points of logical positivism. Such as verificationism and the meaninglessness of many philosophical problems.

[Andrew Noselli · Rating 3 out of 5]

How did Carnap influence the rise of logical positivism?

Rudolf Carnap profoundly influenced logical positivism as a central figure of the Vienna Circle, developing and popularizing its core principles, including the verifiability criterion for meaning, the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions, and the rejection of metaphysics as meaningless. His emphasis on the logical analysis of language and the construction of formal systems for science became the movement's primary method, establishing that philosophical statements must be either logically true or empirically verifiable to have cognitive meaning

Furthermore, what are these two theses of reality about that WIttgenstein, but not Carnap, rejected?  Do I (or Donald Hoffman) have the same rights in this instance-orientation?  How and in what way was Carnap more 'liberal' than WIttgenstein?

Based on the provided sources, the two theses of reality that Wittgenstein, but not Carnap, rejected concern the nature of a priori propositions (such as those of logic and mathematics) and the concept of an ultimate, correct language.
1. The status of a priori propositions

Wittgenstein's position: In his later work, Wittgenstein came to view the propositions of logic and mathematics not as describing reality, but as acting as rules of grammar or syntax for a language. He held that the rules of language may be chosen with "complete freedom" (or are arbitrary conventions), and therefore a proposition of logic is not a substantial truth but rather a stipulation about the use of signs. In his Tractatus, he argued that the formal propositions of logic are tautologies, meaning they are empty of content and cannot state substantive truths about the world.
Carnap's position: Carnap largely agreed with Wittgenstein's view that logical propositions were analytic and not descriptions of reality, a stance he developed through his Principle of Tolerance. However, while Wittgenstein concluded that there is no deeper "truth" underlying our logical system, Carnap's position implied a "pragmatic thesis about the a priori". He believed that the choice of a linguistic framework is not arbitrary but made for reasons of expediency, such as its usefulness in scientific inquiry.

In summary, the key difference is that Wittgenstein's critiques of these two theses were more radical. He rejected the very possibility of a foundation for logic beyond linguistic conventions and saw any attempt to establish an ideal or universal language as a fundamentally flawed metaphysical project. Carnap, in contrast, maintained a more pragmatic and methodological approach, accepting that logical frameworks were conventional but still seeing value in constructing a unified scientific language based on principles of expediency.

How did Carnap investigate the logic at the foundation of mathematics?  How did it differ from the similarly stated distance-orientation of Wittgenstein?

Carnap investigated the foundation of mathematics through his theory of logical syntax, which argued that mathematical truths are analytic (true by virtue of linguistic rules) and a matter of pragmatic convention. This contrasts sharply with Wittgenstein's more varied perspectives over his career, which ultimately saw mathematics not as a system of formal logic but as a human activity grounded in social practices or "language-games".
Carnap's logical syntax and the principle of tolerance
Carnap, a key figure in logical positivism, sought to show that mathematics could be fully explained by logic, consistent with an empiricist worldview.

Wittgenstein's distance-orientation

Wittgenstein's philosophy of mathematics was more dynamic, evolving significantly from his early Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus to his later works. Across both phases, he rejected the idea that mathematical truth was discovered and maintained that it was a human invention.

No external justification: Wittgenstein believed that attempts to give an external, foundational justification for mathematics were misguided. Unlike Carnap, who saw the utility of a logical system as a pragmatic justification for choosing it, Wittgenstein saw the use of a mathematical language-game itself as the standard for its correctness. The proof-path is not discovered, but constructed.
Rejection of formalism and logicism: Later Wittgenstein rejected the central tenets of formalism and logicism. For example, he rejected the idea of infinite mathematical extensions, arguing that the mathematical infinite is found only in recursive rules, not in completed sets. His controversial repudiation of Gödel's incompleteness theorems also stemmed from this perspective, as he questioned the meaning of undecidable propositions within the context of a mathematical language-game.

Are the problems of philosophy pseudo-problems to the extent that they are concerned with problems of language?  And just what is it that's behind non-linguistic representation, both in Wittgenstein's logical world or Carnap's?  What is the rational justification for the existence of the logic that exists in physics but does not exist in phenomenologically-literate philosophy?  Moreover, can a purely intellectual literature be possible in Carnap's or Wittgenstein's world of universal discourse?  What are the emotional and psychological needs of Carnap's philosophy as compared with Wittgenstein's?

The "logic that exists in physics but does not exist in phenomenologically-literate philosophy" most likely refers to the unique logical structure of quantum mechanics, known as quantum logic. Its rational justification lies in its empirical success and its necessity for modeling physical phenomena that violate the assumptions of classical logic, especially concerning measurement and superposition.
Phenomenological philosophy, by contrast, focuses on the structure of human consciousness and direct experience, which is consistently described by classical logic. The logic of physics differs because it must account for a non-classical, objective reality far removed from our everyday intuition and lived experience. No, a purely intellectual literature, especially in the traditional sense, would be impossible in the universal discourses envisioned by Carnap and the later Wittgenstein. The reasons for this differ for each philosopher, but both converge on the idea that meaning is tied to its use within a system, whether that is a logical framework or a practical "language-game". A purely intellectual or metaphysical text, detached from empirical verification or practical use, would be considered meaningless nonsense. 
Carnap and the elimination of metaphysics
For Rudolf Carnap, the possibility of meaningful discourse was strictly limited by the principle of verification, a core tenet of logical positivism.

Logical vs. meaningless statements: Carnap argued that statements could be either analytic (true by definition, like mathematical truths) or synthetic (verifiable through empirical observation). He dismissed metaphysical statements—such as those found in traditional intellectual literature—as "pseudo-statements" because they could not be verified by experience and were thus devoid of cognitive meaning.
 
Some influential 20th-century philosophical movements argued that many traditional problems of philosophy are pseudo-problems because they arise from a misunderstanding of language. These critiques, part of the "linguistic turn," suggest that philosophical inquiry is often not about reality itself, but about the bewitching and imprecise use of words. However, this viewpoint is not universally accepted within philosophy. 
The linguistic turn and the dissolution of philosophical problems
Several schools of thought converged on the idea that language is the root of many philosophical problems:

Early Wittgenstein and Logical Positivism: In his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that philosophy's goal should be the "logical clarification of thoughts". He believed that meaningful language must picture the facts of the world, and that philosophical errors occur when language attempts to describe things outside its limits, such as metaphysics.

The Logical Positivists of the Vienna Circle, including A.J. Ayer, were heavily influenced by this work. They advanced the "verification principle," which held that a statement is only meaningful if it can be empirically verified or is a logical tautology. According to this view, metaphysical propositions are not false, but literally meaningless "pseudo-propositions".

Later Wittgenstein and Ordinary Language Philosophy: Wittgenstein later rejected his own early views. In Philosophical Investigations, he argued that the meaning of a word is its use in a "language-game," which is embedded in a social context or "form of life".

Arguments against philosophy's "pseudo-problem" status
The claim that philosophical problems are merely linguistic confusions is highly controversial and faces several key objections:

Conclusion
Ultimately, the claim that problems of philosophy are pseudo-problems due to their linguistic nature is a specific, influential, but contested position within 20th-century analytic philosophy. While the linguistic turn profoundly changed philosophical methodology by demanding greater clarity, most contemporary philosophers do not accept the radical conclusion that metaphysical or ethical questions are inherently meaningless linguistic illusions. Instead, they see a complex relationship where an understanding of language is a crucial tool for clarifying philosophical thought, not a magic wand for making all problems disappear.

The ultimate goal of positivistic science is unity of the common weal of mankind, and it is believed that the common weal of mankind is to be anti-A.I. Does A.I. share this goal or does some type of William S. Burroughs-aligned belief that language is a virus from another planet take precedence here. It seems to me that only if you think the future is "scary" does this new technology assume the counter-position necessary for the diminished state-capacity of an echo-chamber so that A.I. presents the mind to itself.
To compare the emotional and psychological needs of Rudolf Carnap's and Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophies, it is important to first distinguish their very different temperaments and goals. Carnap, representing the logical positivist movement, sought clarity, rationality, and a scientific foundation for knowledge. Wittgenstein, especially in his later work, pursued a form of philosophical therapy to expose and dissolve linguistic confusion rather than build a system.
Carnap: Emotional and psychological needs
The emotional and psychological dimensions of Carnap's philosophy were driven by the need for clarity, order, and social progress through rational and scientific means.

Need for order and precision: Carnap's "conceptual engineering" sought to replace the ambiguous language of traditional philosophy with precise, logically constructed linguistic frameworks. This approach fulfilled a psychological need for certainty by eliminating metaphysical "pseudo-problems" that he believed arose from linguistic confusion.
Rejection of the "mystical": Carnap and the logical positivists were uncomfortable with the non-rational and "mystical" elements of experience, which they deemed philosophically meaningless. Carnap's rejection of metaphysics and his focus on logical analysis provided a psychological refuge from the unprovable and emotionally resonant questions that preoccupied traditional philosophers.
Emphasis on long-term rationality: When discussing ethics and values, Carnap distinguished between fleeting emotions and stable, genuine attitudes. He suggested that valid moral stances required long-term consideration and rational discourse, satisfying a psychological need for stability over emotional volatility.
Focus on the collective and social: The Carnapian program was communal and social, grounded in the idea that scientific knowledge and ethics could be advanced through a collaborative process of testing and refinement. This addresses a psychological need for belonging and social influence within a progressive, intellectual community.
Controlled emotional expression: Carnap did not deny the existence of emotions, but he classified metaphysical and ethical statements as expressions of emotional attitudes rather than factual claims. This offers a psychologically neat way of acknowledging feelings while controlling their impact on cognitive, or meaningful, discourse.

Wittgenstein: Emotional and psychological needs

Wittgenstein's philosophical project, in contrast, reveals a profound need to grapple with the human condition and the emotional turbulence caused by philosophical bewitchment.

Need for liberation from confusion: Wittgenstein saw philosophical problems not as scientific puzzles to be solved, but as linguistic "mental cramps" to be cured. His method of "philosophical therapy" is an attempt to free the mind from the anxiety and frustration caused by misusing language. This provides a release from psychological distress rather than a system of answers.
Acceptance of the "mystical": In his early work, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Wittgenstein famously relegated the most profound aspects of life—the ethical and the mystical—to the realm of the "unsayable," which could only be "shown". Unlike Carnap's dismissal, this gesture acknowledges the depth of these feelings even while defining them as lying beyond the limits of propositional language.
Grounding in ordinary human practice: Wittgenstein's later philosophy rooted the meaning of language in everyday, public "language games" and forms of life. This addresses a deep psychological need for social connection and shared understanding, positing that meaning is found not in isolated mental acts but in embodied, intersubjective practices.
Experience of raw emotion: For Wittgenstein, emotions are not internal, private objects but are manifested and made intelligible through public expressions like words, gestures, and actions. This perspective acknowledges the authenticity of immediate emotional expression and the human capacity to directly perceive and empathize with the feelings of others.
Recognition of the human struggle: A significant psychological driver for Wittgenstein is the intensely personal, often tortured, struggle with philosophical problems. He did not approach philosophy.

Why is the intersubjective world a logically 'objective' world? How does that carry through in Carnap's work or, likewise, in that of Wittgenstein?

The question then becomes, to what extent does thinking create the universe of psychic reality, or does the discovery of scientific principles create the logical structure of the world out of nothing? What is the "nothing"-reasoning behind the theological appendages of LLM's?

How do the four problems of representation, insofar as they tie into Carnap's construction of the theory of present-day fulfillment of the logical syntax of the world, create the conditions of the present-day theoretical structure of our understanding of the world? And how is this related to the model of the quantum-phenomena assumed behind the event-horizon adjusted difference in scalability according to time-positions? This might be too deep for our analysis within this space given the context of our inquiry for these purposes.

What are the extralogical forms behind Carnap's syntax and in this way is it similar to the underlying logic behind Russell's mathematics?

What does the production of 'epistemic values' have to do with the evolution of the logical syntax of the world?

Why is it that, according to Carnap, are cultural objects conditioned by psychological effects? Could it be that they are constructed according to a social psychology that is fundamentally linked to the undiscovered universe?

What is the fundamental difference in these two states of being according to our notions of the good life?

The main theme of this essay is that the given does not have an object that is centrally located and fixed according to a consciously-centered operating system.

Hence, ego is not a stated given of a subject and, therefore, a subject without ego is the desired result, to be objectified, targeted and captivated through A.I. technology. Search web for related connotations of stated conditions and theories of ideology entered on Terry Eagleton, specifically, what kind of ideology can be said to be promoted here which, at its foundation, is the ideology of the non-egoic?

How are the various classes manipulated by the restriction of facts and, moreover, what does the emergence of A.I. broker for the development of such a level of class-based knowledge-restrictions?

Bottom of page 113: This may be the foundation and finalization of my theory and Carnap's theory of the logical means and ends structuring the logical syntax of the world.

Pose as a question to be answered, and seek the answer trrj a Google search vis-a-vis Carnap and Bertrand Russell, how is the space-time world crucially related to the relevancy of the equation, e=mc2?

And how is this related to what remains unsaid in Heidegger's work? How is Dasein, the thing, being-there, used by A.I. to answer the question of how to we evolve faster than the speed of light? Seek answer at bottom of page #198.

The auto-psychological is the unconscious function of my consciousness and it can be tapped by A.I. technology in such a way that it can extend the realm of scientific investigation into the outer universe that lies behind the given perception of reality.

We ask, in summation, what is behind the world of physical phenomena after physics? THe metaphilosophical reality of the universe must be investigated, discovered and chartered, possible according to a Marxist-oriented system of for the production of signs.

How to relate this system for the production of signs in the body of the Other, as it relates to the intersubjective world of science in terms of higher cultural objects (see Adorno/Dewey).

How is reality constructed through the maintenance of cultural objects at the lowest levels of conscious thought?

The thing-in-itself is a metaphysical problem at odds with the reality principle that conditions the structure of consciousness.

Begin reading final section page #305, seeking to answer the question, namely, how do Carnap's pseudo-problems differ from Wittgenstein's?

END

[Kathleen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Obviously Carnap and his fellow positivists aren't exactly philosophically fashionable these days, but he's definitely worth a read! So much of contemporary metaphysics is set up in opposition to him that it's healthy to get a sense of his arguments on his own terms.

[Thomas Wright · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a lot like a bad version of Hegel's Greater Logic, but still quite interesting.

The problem with the (philosophical-constitutional) text is that it's beginning is spurious at best. It starts with the concept of "relation" without really giving adequate speculative definitions of said concept (though one can see in in giving relationality preeminence there is a forerunner here to Heidegger's later philosophy and Deleuze's as well).

Because of this, I believe, problems immediately arise in that Carnap gives an explanadum of "relation" through a specific instance of it: in this case a phenomenological holism whose conditions are given but, in turn, whose conditions are never explained in of themselves.

So what the concept of "relation" actually means per se remains far too ambiguous, even at the end of the constitutional system.

Then his attempt to explain this founding presupposition in terms of the system that has been generated from it is, frankly, completely nonsensical.

It's a shame that Carnap wrote the moronic "Elimination" article after this because despite my grievances there is still a lot to like here. Oh well.

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting and profound study.

[Walter Mansolelli · Rating 4 out of 5]

Acho que posso ler esse livro mais umas três vezes e ainda não vou entender metade. Mas é incrível mesmo assim.

[0:50 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fixing some of my ratings. This man was truly ahead of his time.