What are the different types of Categories of Sentences

From the view point of linguistic analysis, Carnap divides sentences into two categories:

1. The first type of sentences is those which are literally meaningful but, are nonetheless mythical and represent nothing real. For example, the phrases “son of a barren woman” “married virgin,” “Square Circle” etc., is meaningful though, it is as a matter of fact impossible for a barren woman to bear a child or for a circle to be a square. Therefore, these phrases are mythical inspite of their being meaningful.

2. The second type of sentences possesses the structure of a sentence and syntactically is quite proper but, they still lack in meaning. For example, the sentence, “Caesar is a prime number” has the structure of a sentence and is grammatically flawless, but, it obviously is devoid of meaning.

The concept of prime number belongs to mathematics and cannot be predicated of human beings, such expressions are called pseudo-sentences by Carnap and these are further subdivided into two categories:

(i) Those sentences which make use of meaningless words. For example, “Twiling is Sub.”

(ii) Those sentences which have meaningful words but, in the present context are senseless. For example, “Red is subhuman” The metaphysicians commit the fallacy of believing that each proper noun or substantive has a referent, that is, it is a name of some existent thing. Due to this they think that the word like God, ghost, mermaid must be the names of some existent beings.

Criterion of meaning:

As to the problem of determining the meaning of an expression Carnap lays down the following criterion: “The syntax of the word must be fixed, that is, the mode of its occurring, we call this sentence from its elementary sentence.” Further the elementary sentences serve four purposes.

1. From what sentences, elementary sentences are derived and what type of sentences are produced by these elementary sentences?

2. Under what circumstances the elementary sentences are true and under what circumstances these are false?

3. How can we verify elementary sentences?

4. What is the meaning of elementary sentences?

Examination of Metaphysics:

If we try to determine the meaning and verify the metaphysical expression by any of the above mentioned tests, we find that the metaphysical expressions satisfy none of these criteria. Take, for example, the word “God”.

According to some God is a person but, according to others he is impersonal. Some believe him to be outside the world and some believe him to be within the world. He is, according to metaphysicians, beyond all experience but, mystics claim that they hear as well as see God. All these are contradictory meanings.

According to Carnap, “To be sure, it often looks as though the word “God” had a meaning even in Metaphysics. But, the definitions which are set up prove on closer inspection to be pseudo-definitions.

“Thus, in metaphysics many expressions like the above are used. When we say “All reality is mental or material”, it is incomprehensible as to what could we mean by “All.” We can experience only ‘this’ or ‘that’ but, there is no experience of ‘all’.

Therefore, we can conclude that metaphysical expressions are utterly devoid of meaning and therefore, unverifiable. They are more like literary metaphors than the symbols of something in the physical world.

Sometimes the metaphysicians make use of meaningful words but, the syntax is such that the expressions as a whole become meaningless though all individual words taken separately may be meaningful. These expressions are called pseudo-concepts by Carnap. For example, “He or is she good not” is meaningless though, each word is meaningful.