This chapter responds to the two main arguments of Quine's paper ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’. It argues that Chapter 2's rejection of the language myth makes it easier to understand what is good or plausible in the infamous argument from circularity, but that it ultimately also allows us to reject the conclusion of that argument. Similarly, the argument from confirmation holism is presented and rejected.
Keywords: Quine, circularity argument, reference determiner, confirmation holism, analytic, verificationism, logical positivism