This paper argues against the claim that Frege is committed to an infinite hierarchy of senses. Carnap and Kripke, along with many others, argue the contrary; I expose where all such arguments go astray. Invariably these arguments assume (without citation) that Frege holds that sense and reference are always distinct. This is the fulcrum upon which the hierarchy is hoisted. The counter to this assumption is based on two important but neglected passages. The locution ‘indirect sense’ has (...) no ontological significance for Frege. It was just a ‘short expression’ (his term) to indicate that the customary relation between sign, sense, and reference is suspended in what he called the exception case of indirect context. Once the hierarchy is abandoned, the alleged problem of just what indirect sense is, as well as questions as to why Frege said so little about it and why he did not examine iterative indirect contexts are resolved. Of course, with no hierarchy, Davidson’s “unlearnability argument” turns out to be a non-starter. Some objections to my interpretation are considered and answered. Additionally, comparisons to Dummett’s one-level view of sense, which is similar to mine are made, as well as to some two-level views (Parsons and Skiba). (shrink)

Abstract Though it has been claimed that Frege's commitment to expressions in indirect contexts not having their customary senses commits him to an infinite number of semantic primitives, Terrence Parsons has argued that Frege's explicit commitments are compatible with a two-level theory of senses. In this paper, we argue Frege is committed to some principles Parsons has overlooked, and, from these and other principles to which Frege is committed, give a proof that he is indeed committed to (...) an infinite number of semantic primitives?an intolerable result. (shrink)

This paper argues against the claim that Frege is committed to an infinite hierarchy of senses. Carnap and Kripke, along with many others, argue the contrary; I expose where all such arguments go astray. Invariably these arguments assume (without citation) that Frege holds that sense and reference are always distinct. This is the fulcrum upon which the hierarchy is hoisted. The counter to this assumption is based on two important but neglected passages. The locution ‘indirect sense’ has (...) no ontological significance for Frege. It was just a ‘short expression’ (his term) to indicate that the customary relation between sign, sense, and reference is suspended in what he called the exception case of indirect context. Once the hierarchy is abandoned, the alleged problem of just what indirect sense is, as well as questions as to why Frege said so little about it and why he did not examine iterative indirect contexts are resolved. Of course, with no hierarchy, Davidson’s ‘unlearnability argument’ turns out to be a non-starter. Some objections to my interpretation are considered and answered. Additionally, comparisons to Dummett’s one-level view of sense, which is similar to mine are made, as well as to some two-level views (Parsons and Skiba). (shrink)

The paper analyses Frege's approach to the identity conditions for the entity labelled by him as Sinn. It starts with a brief characterization of the main principles of Frege's semantics and lists his remarks on the identity conditions for Sinn. They are subject to a detailed scrutiny, and it is shown that, with the exception of the criterion of intersubstitutability in oratio obliqua, all other criteria have to be discarded. Finally, by comparing Frege's views on Sinn with (...) Carnap's method of extension and intension and the method of intensional isomorphism, it is proved that these methods do not provide a criterion for the identity of Frege's Sinn, even for extensional contexts, that the concept of intension does not coincide, as stated by Carnap, in these contexts, with Frege's concept of Sinn, and that Carnap's claim that in oratio obliqua Frege's semantics leads to an infinite hierarchy of Sinn entities can be questioned at least hypothetically in the light of certain new historical facts. (shrink)

The question whether Frege’s theory of indirect reference enforces an infinite hierarchy of senses has been hotly debated in the secondary literature. Perhaps the most influential treatment of the issue is that of Burge (1979), who offers an argument for the hierarchy from rather minimal Fregean assumptions. I argue that this argument, endorsed by many, does not itself enforce an infinite hierarchy of senses. I conclude that whether or not the theory of indirect reference can (...) avail itself of only finitely many senses is pending further theoretical development. (shrink)

According to Frege, expressions shift their reference when they occur in indirect contexts: in “Anna believes that Plato is wise” the expression “Plato” no longer refers to Plato but to what is ordinarily its sense. Many philosophers, including Carnap, Davidson, Burge, Parsons, Kripke and Künne, believe that on Frege's view the iteration of indirect context creating operators gives rise to an infinite hierarchy of senses. While the former two take this to be problematic, the latter four welcome (...) the hierarchy with open arms. In this paper I argue that the hierarchy should be avoided and that it can be avoided. (shrink)

It is well known that Frege was an extensionalist, in the following sense: he held that the truth-value of a sentence is always a function only of the references of its parts. One consequence of this view is that expressions occurring in certain linguistic contexts – for example, the that-clauses of propositional attitude ascriptions – do not have their usual references, but refer instead to what are usually their senses. But although a number of philosophers have objected to this result, (...) no one has yet attempted to see what happens to Frege's views – and, in particular, to his theory of sense and reference – if his extensionalism is abandoned while his other views are maintained. This paper thus does two things. First, it clears the way for such an attempt, by arguing that recent defences of Frege's extensionalism – by Tyler Burge, Saul Kripke, Terence Parsons and Christopher Peacocke – fall short. Second, it sketches a positive proposal for a non-extensionalist application of Frege's theory of sense and reference to sentences of indirect discourse and ascriptions of propositional attitude. (shrink)

Discusses Frege's formal definitions and characterizations of infinite and finite sets. Speculates that Frege might have discovered the "oddity" in Dedekind's famous proof that all infinite sets are Dedekind infinite and, in doing so, stumbled across an axiom of countable choice.

Discusses Frege's formal definitions and characterizations of infinite and finite sets. Speculates that Frege might have discovered the "oddity" in Dedekind's famous proof that all infinite sets are Dedekind infinite and, in doing so, stumbled across an axiom of countable choice.

Frege's theory of indirect contexts and the shift of sense and reference in these contexts has puzzled many. What can the hierarchy of indirect senses, doubly indirect senses, and so on, be? Donald Davidson gave a well-known 'unlearnability' argument against Frege's theory. The present paper argues that the key to Frege's theory lies in the fact that whenever a reference is specified (even though many senses determine a single reference), it is specified in a particular way, (...) so that giving a reference implies giving a sense; and that one must be 'acquainted' with the sense. It is argued that an indirect sense must be 'immediately revelatory' of its reference. General principles for Frege's doctrine of sense and reference are sated, for both direct and indirect quotation, to be understood iteratively. I also discuss Frege's doctrine of tensed and first person statements in the light of my analysis. The views of various other authors are examined. The conclusion is to ascribe to Frege an implicit doctrine of acquaintance similar to that of Russell. (shrink)

I develop a new reading of Frege’s argument for the indefinability of truth. I concentrate on what Frege literally says in the passage that contains the argument. This literal reading of the passage establishes that the indefinability argument is an arguably sound argument to the following conclusion: provided that the Fregean conception of judgment—which has recently been countered by Hanks—is correct and that truth is a property of truth-bearers, a vicious infinite regress is produced. Given this vicious regress, Frege (...) chooses to reject that truth is a property of truth-bearers. Frege’s choice leads to a unique version of the Fregean conception of judgment. His unique conception of judgment can cope with Hanks’s recent criticisms against the Fregean conception. (shrink)

It is often claimed that the theory of function levels proposed by Frege in Grundgesetze der Arithmetik anticipates the hierarchy of types that underlies Church’s simple theory of types. This claim roughly states that Frege presupposes a type of functions in the sense of simple type theory in the expository language of Grundgesetze. However, this view makes it hard to accommodate function names of two arguments and view functions as incomplete entities. I propose and defend an alternative interpretation of (...) first-level function names in Grundgesetze into simple type-theoretic open terms rather than into closed terms of a function type. This interpretation offers a still unhistorical but more faithful type-theoretic approximation of Frege’s theory of levels and can be naturally extended to accommodate second-level functions. It is made possible by two key observations that Frege’s Roman markers behave essentially like open terms and that Frege lacks a clear criterion for distinguishing between Roman markers and function names. (shrink)

The main objective of this paper is to examine how theories of truth and reference that are in a broad sense Fregean in character are threatened by antinomies; in particular by the Epimenides paradox and versions of the so-called Russell-Myhill antinomy, an intensional analogue of Russell’s more well-known paradox for extensions. Frege’s ontology of propositions and senses has recently received renewed interest in connection with minimalist theories that take propositions (thoughts) and senses (concepts) as the primary bearers of truth and (...) reference. In this paper, I will present a rigorous version of Frege’s theory of sense and denotation and show that it leads to antinomies. I am also going to discuss ways of modifying Frege’s semantical and ontological framework in order to avoid the paradoxes. In this connection, I explore the possibility of giving up the Fregean assumption of a universal domain of absolutely all objects, containing in addition to extensional objects also abstract intensional ones like propositions and singular concepts. I outline a cumulative hierarchy of Fregean propositions and senses, in analogy with Gödel’s hierarchy of constructible sets. In this hierarchy, there is no domain of all objects. Instead, every domain of objects is extendible with new objects that, on pain of contradiction, cannot belong to the given domain. According to this approach, there is no domain containing absolutely all propositions or absolutely all senses. (shrink)

This paper has been superseded by chapter 3 of my book "God, the Best, and Evil" (OUP 2008). The chapter concerns God's choices in cases in which God has infinitely many better and better options.

The fregean theory of meaning says how the meaningful parts of a meaningful expression contribute to that expression's sense and reference. But frege overlooks the fact that logical expressions play dual roles. The contributions of sentential connectives, For example, Are well described for contexts in which they connect sentences, But not for larger quantificational contexts. An obvious modification of the theory which might fill the abyss is considered, And it is maintained that it produces two difficulties: a replication of (...) class='Hi'>frege's concept 'horse' troubles and an infinite proliferation of logical vocabulary. The seriousness of these difficulties is briefly discussed. (shrink)

[ES] El logicismo de Frege o, en términos más generales, su esfuerzo por construir un fundamento de razonamiento deductivo para las matemáticas fue motivado por el deseo de combatir el empirismo radical que empezaba a dominar la discusión científica en las tierras de habla alemana después de la muerte de Hegel. El objetivo similar de Russell unas décadas después, en cambio, se debe en su origen preponderantemente al deseo de superar el neohegelianismo de Bradley. El joven Wittgenstein formuló a partir (...) de lo que aprendió de ambos el sistema del Tractatus, rechazando algunos aspectos claves de uno y otro. Hay, por consiguiente, incompatibilidades importantes entre las tres propuestas de solución para los problemas relacionados con el concepto de la verdad y de la relación que debemos suponer que existe entre mundo, lenguaje y pensamiento. Si sus reflexiones se comparan con el manejo de preguntas aproximadamente equivalentes hoy en día, en particular a raíz del concepto semántico de la verdad que debemos a Tarski, nos podemos dar cuenta que hemos logrado una enorme flexibilidad en el manejo de los lenguajes simbólicos; a este dominio técnico de las herramientas que nos dio la formalización de la lógica simbólica debemos, entre otros avances, el Internet y los teléfonos inteligentes. En cambio, se perdió de vista la profundidad filosófica que estuvo en su origen, y, se podría decir, algo de lo filosófico de la filosofía. El brillo intenso de las tecnologías nuevas junto con la sensación de que tenemos a nuestra disposición una jerarquía infinita de lenguajes o metalenguajes, que nos permiten manejar cualquier problema heredado del nivel anterior, hacen que nos parezca superflua la ocupación con cuestiones más propiamente filosóficas como las entendían los primeros proponentes de la filosofía analítica. Es en parte a esta pérdida de sentido filosófico del quehacer del filósofo que se deben otros fenómenos que hablan de la trivialización de la filosofía: someter esta actividad en el marco académico a una medición cuantitativa que produce un diluvio de trabajos perfectamente inútiles, o la confusión de la filosofía con la elaboración de reglas operativas para hospitales. [EN] Frege’s logicism or, more generally, his efforts to construct a foundation for mathematics based on deductive reasoning was motivated by his wish to fight the radical empiricism that began to dominate scientific argument in German speaking countries after Hegel’s death. Russell’s similar purpose a few decades later, on the other hand, was originally due mainly to their wish to overcome Bradley’s neo-Hegelianism. Young Wittgenstein forged the system of the Tractatus drawing from his knowledge of both, refuting some key aspects of one or other. There are therefore important incompatibilities between the three proposed solutions for the problems related to the concept of truth and to the relation we must suppose exists between world, language and thought. When we compare their thoughts to today’s ways of handling questions which are approximately equivalent, particularly in the wake of the semantic concept of truth we owe to Tarksi, we may become aware that we have certainly gained enormous flexibility in the handling of symbolic languages; the Internet and intelligent telephones, among other signs of progress would have been impossible without this technical mastery of tools we obtained thanks to the formalization of symbolic logic. But, on the other hand, we also lost view of the philosophical depth that stood at its cradle and, it might be said, a bit of what makes philosophy philosophical. The intense sparkle of the new technologies together with the impression that we have an infinite hierarchy of languages or metalanguages at our disposal which allow us to handle any problem inherited from the previous level, may give us the impression that questions related to more deeply philosophical problems, such as the first proponents of analytical philosophy tried to deal with, are idle. Other phenomena which bear witness to the trivialization of philosophy are in part due to this loss of philosophical meaning of the business of philosophy: subduing this activity within the academic framework to methods of quantification which result in a deluge of perfectly useless publications, or the confusion of philosophy with the elaboration of operating rules for hospitals. (shrink)

In the paper, I propose a novel approach to Frege’s view on the principle of compositionality, its relation to the propositional holism and the formation of concepts. The main idea is to distinguish three stages of constructing a logically perfect language. At the first stage, only a sentence as a whole expresses a Thought. It is impossible to assign meaning to less complex units. This is the stage of an ordinary language. The second phase concerns the proper level of construction (...) of a logically perfect language. We are forced to discriminate syntactic and semantic parts of sentences to account for the inference relations. We can distinguish senses and references of parts of sentences. Furthermore, it is possible here to choose between different ways of analysing the given Thought. Finally, at the third stage, every expression of the language has an unambiguous sense and this sense determines a unique reference. The logically perfect language is ready. We may view Thoughts as composed from primitive elements. Moreover, the senses of parts of a sentence correspond to the parts of a Thought, so that the structure of the sentence serves as the image of the structure of the Thought. The principle of compositionality is met and we can discern how understanding of the infinite numbers of Thoughts is possible and how languages are learnable. The main advantage of the presented view is that it allows accommodating some aspects of Frege’s philosophy that are often seen as mutually incompatible. Furthermore, I submit extensive textual data in favour of the discussed views and conceptions. (shrink)

Is a logicist bound to the claim that as a matter of analytic truth there is an actual infinity of objects? If Hume’s Principle is analytic then in the standard setting the answer appears to be yes. Hodes’s work pointed to a way out by offering a modal picture in which only a potential infinity was posited. However, this project was abandoned due to apparent failures of cross-world predication. We re-explore this idea and discover that in the setting of the (...) potential infinite one can interpret first-order Peano arithmetic, but not second-order Peano arithmetic. We conclude that in order for the logicist to weaken the metaphysically loaded claim of necessary actual infinities, they must also weaken the mathematics they recover. (shrink)

In this paper, we characterize the strength of the predicative Frege hierarchy, , introduced by John Burgess in his book [J. Burgess, Fixing frege, in: Princeton Monographs in Philosophy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2005]. We show that and are mutually interpretable. It follows that is mutually interpretable with Q. This fact was proved earlier by Mihai Ganea in [M. Ganea, Burgess’ PV is Robinson’s Q, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 72 619–624] using a different proof. Another consequence of the (...) our main result is that is mutually interpretable with Kalmar Arithmetic . The fact that interprets EA was proved earlier by Burgess. We provide a different proof. Each of the theories is finitely axiomatizable. Our main result implies that the whole hierarchy taken together, , is not finitely axiomatizable. What is more: no theory that is mutually locally interpretable with is finitely axiomatizable. (shrink)

In the context of [Formula: see text], we analyze a version of Hindman’s finite unions theorem on infinite sets, which normally requires the Axiom of Choice to be proved. We establish the implication relations between this statement and various classical weak choice principles, thus precisely locating the strength of the statement as a weak form of the [Formula: see text].

This book is an attempt to examine the concept of "public interest" and show that, while it has no general, unchanging, descriptive meaning applicable to all policy decisions, it does have a non-arbitrary descriptive meaning which can be determined in particular cases. This meaning can be found through "reasoned discourse" which attempts to relate the anticipated effects of a policy to community values. The concept of public interest is, the author argues, neither a vacuous phrase nor a verbal device useful (...) only for propaganda purposes. The author then attempts to see whether "reason" as it appears in "reasoned discourse" mentioned above can carry the burden assigned to it. In a close examination of what "giving reasons" consists of in the absence of a hierarchy of values, the author shows that it amounts to more than an infinite logical regress. The author admits that there remains an arbitrary element in value judgments which is much smaller and capable of more precise definition than is usually thought). In situations of conflict and diversity of values among reasoning men, the dilemma is resolved by the principle of "authority." Authority itself is required to justify its decisions by giving reasons, but precisely what authority is, beyond this giving of reasons based on somewhat arbitrary values, is not examined.—S. W. (shrink)

THERE IS GREAT MOTIVATION WITHIN FREGE'S THEORY TO\nCONSTRUE THE CARDINAL NUMBERS AS QUANTIFIERS, WHICH ARE\nHIGHER LEVEL CONCEPTS. BUT FREGE ARGUED THAT THE CARDINAL\nNUMBERS ARE OBJECTS, NOT CONCEPTS, AND DEFINED THEM\nACCORDINGLY. MOREOVER, FREGE'S HIERARCHY OF CONCEPTS\nPREVENTED HIM FROM CONSTRUING THE NUMBERS AS CONCEPTS. MY\nPURPOSE IS TO BRING OUT THE QUANTIFICATIONAL NATURE OF THE\nNUMBERS IN THE FACE OF THESE OBSTACLES. THE PAPER PRESSES\nTHE QUANTIFICATIONAL VIEW ONTO FREGE'S CONCEPT OF NUMBER AS\nIT TRACES ITS DEVELOPMENT FROM THE "BEGRIFFSSCHRIFT",\nTHROUGH THE 1880S, (...) INTO ITS FORMALIZATION IN THE\n"GRUNDGESETZE". THE THEORY YIELDS SURPRISINGLY EASILY UNDER\nPRESSURE FROM THE QUANTIFICATIONAL VIEW, AND ONE\nSYMPATHETIC WITH THAT VIEW MAY TAKE ENCOURAGEMENT FROM THE\nFACT THAT IT WAS FREGE'S HIERARCHY OF CONCEPTS, NOT HIS\nACTUAL ARGUMENTS, THAT PREVENTED HIS CONSTRUING NUMBERS AS\nQUANTIFIERS. (shrink)

We establish the hierarchy among twelve equivalence relations on the class of relational structures: the equality, the isomorphism, the equimorphism, the full relation, four similarities of structures induced by similarities of their self-embedding monoids and intersections of these equivalence relations. In particular, fixing a language L and a cardinal κ, we consider the interplay between the restrictions of these similarities to the class ModL of all L-structures of size κ. It turns out that, concerning the number of different similarities (...) and the shape of the corresponding Hasse diagram, the class of all structures naturally splits into three parts: finite structures, infinite structures of unary languages, and infinite structures of non-unary languages. (shrink)

§1. I will start with a quick definition of descriptive set theory: It is the study of the structure of definable sets and functions in separable completely metrizable spaces. Such spaces are usually called Polish spaces. Typical examples are ℝn, ℂn, Hilbert space and more generally all separable Banach spaces, the Cantor space 2ℕ, the Baire space ℕℕ, the infinite symmetric group S∞, the unitary group, the group of measure preserving transformations of the unit interval, etc.In this theory sets (...) are classified in hierarchies according to the complexity of their definitions and the structure of sets in each level of these hierarchies is systematically analyzed. In the beginning we have the Borel sets in Polish spaces, obtained by starting with the open sets and closing under the operations of complementation and countable unions, and the corresponding Borel hierarchy. After this come the projective sets, obtained by starting with the Borel sets and closing under the operations of complementation and projection, and the corresponding projective hierarchy.There are also transfinite extensions of the projective hierarchy and even much more complex definable sets studied in descriptive set theory, but I will restrict myself here to Borel and projective sets, in fact just those at the first level of the projective hierarchy, i.e., the Borel (), analytic () and coanalytic () sets. (shrink)

This collection of papers in epistemic logic is oriented towards applications to game theory and individual decision theory. Most of these papers were presented at the inaugural conference of the LOFT (Logic for the Theory and Games and Decisions) conference series, which took place in 1994 in Marseille. Among the notions dealt with are those of common knowledge and common belief, infinite hierarchies of beliefs and belief spaces, logical omniscience, positive and negative introspection, backward induction and rationalizable equilibria in (...) game theory. (shrink)

The paper examines Davidson′s discussion of Frege on the problem of predication. Simple declarative sentences are unities that are true or false; how do predicates contribute to this kind of semantic unity? According to Davidson, the problem cannot be solved by assigning referents to predicates, since this leads to an infinite regress. Frege famously contributes the idea that predicates are “incomplete” or “unsaturated” functional expressions, mapping objects to truth-values. However, he takes predicates to refer to concepts and thus is (...) exposed to Davidson′s argument. I will show that Davidson is only right with regards to “Frege′s semantics”. Yet Frege′s logical doctrine of the decomposition of a sentence – I shall argue – allows for a resolution of this problem. (shrink)

It is difficult to describe this book without praising it. Collected here in one volume are some thirty-six high quality translations into English of the most important foreign-language works in mathematical logic, as well as articles and letters by Whitehead, Russell, Norbert Weiner and Post. The contents of the volume are arranged in chronological order, beginning with Frege's Begriffsschrift—translated in its entirety—and concluding with Gödel's famous "On Formally Undecidable Propositions" and Herbrand's "On the Consistency of Arithmetic". The translation of (...) the Gödel article is a small masterpiece, and is especially welcome in view of some of the rather poor efforts which have been made to render this important work into English. But this is more than a paste-pot job of anthologizing. Van Heijenoort and others have written prefaces to each of the included selections, in which are provided background historical and bibliographical information, comments on the intellectual currents which led to the production of the article, and, in many cases, a digest of the important theorems and concepts in the article itself. Each selection is a classic in its own right. In reading through the selections in this volume, one is struck by the extent to which purely mathematical problems and issues have controlled recent logical inquiry and have determined the development of various philosophies of mathematics. In the early stages, Frege and Peano were concerned with the logical reconstruction of arithmetic, and this led to the work of Russell and the logicist philosophy. Already in the development of the new logic there were certain problems which were resolved with Russell's theory of types—a device which many mathematicians felt to be rather artificial. The use of set theory, beginning with Cantor and reaching its maturity in Zermelo's 1904 proof of the well-ordering theorem, gave rise to a new set of difficulties concerning the axioms of choice, the continuum problem, and infinite sets. The two traditions are brought together in a common nexus of foundational problems by Weiner in 1914 and by Skolem's form of the Löwenheim theorem, given in 1920. Hereafter, the way is open for the rise of mathematical inquiry into the foundations of number systems, set theory and logic by Post, Skolem, von Neumann, Hilbert, Bernays, Gödel and many others. The work was far from completed by 1931, but a new and important tradition in mathematical inquiry had been established, and had come into its own. This book is, in effect, the record of an important chapter in the history of thought. No serious student of logic or foundations of mathematics will want to be without it.—H. P. K. (shrink)

I investigate why Frege rejected the theory of types, as Russell presented it to him in their correspondence. Frege claims that it commits one to violations of the law of excluded middle, but this complaint seems to rest on a dogmatic refusal to take Russell’s proposal seriously on its own terms. What is at stake is not so much the truth of a law of logic, but the structure of the hierarchy of the logical categories, something Frege seems to (...) neglect. To come to a better understanding of Frege’s response, I proceed to investigate his conception of the nature of the logical categories, and how it differs from Russell’s. I argue that, for Frege, our grasp of the logical categories cannot be severed from our grasp of the Begriffsschrift notation itself. Russell, on the other hand, attaches no such importance to notation. From Frege’s point of view, Russell has not succeeded in presenting an alternative conception of the logical hierarchy, since such a conception must go in tandem with the development of a notation. Moreover, Frege has good reasons to think that Russell’s proposal does not admit of a suitable notation. (shrink)

Öz: Frege özel adların (ve diğer dilsel simgelerin) anlamları ve gönderimleri arasında ünlü ayrımını yaptığı “Anlam ve Gönderim Üzerine” (1948) adlı makalesinde, bu ayrımın önemi, gerekliliği ve sonuçları üzerine uzun değerlendirmeler yapar ancak özel adın anlamından tam olarak ne anlaşılması gerektiğinden yalnızca bir dipnotta kısaca söz eder. Örneğin “Aristoteles” özel adının anlamının Platon’un öğrencisi ve Büyük İskender’in öğretmeni ya da Stagira’da doğan Büyük İskender’in öğretmeni olarak alınabileceğini söyler. Burada dikkat çeken nokta örnekteki özel adın olası anlamları olarak gösterilen belirli betimlemelerin (...) de özel ad içeriyor olması. Anlamın Frege için bileşimsel olduğu, bir başka deyişle bir dilsel simgenin anlamının (varsa) parçalarının anlamlarınca belirlendiği düşünülürse, örnekteki belirli betimlemelerin anlamlarının saptanabilmesi için içerdikleri özel adların da anlamları saptanıp betimleme içinde geçtikleri yere konmalıdır. Bu işlem hiçbir özel ad kalmayana kadar sürdürülmelidir. Ancak biraz düşünülünce bir özel adın nesnesini tekil olarak betimleyecek ve içinde özel ad geçmeyecek bir betimleme bulmanın kolay olmadığı görülür. Örneğin yukarıdaki betimlemelerde geçen “Platon”, “Büyük İskender” ve “Stagira” gibi özel adların anlamları olabilecek ancak özel ad içermeyen betimlemeler bulmak pek kolay görünmüyor. Ortaya bir sonsuz gerileme sorunu çıkmış gibi duruyor. Frege’nin anlam-gönderim ayrımını için ciddi sonuçları olabilecek bu sorunu Frege çözebilir mi? Bu yazıda bu sorunun yanıtını arayacağım. Sorunu betimledikten sonra Frege’nin önündeki seçenekleri (örneğin bağlama duyarlı terimlerden (gösterme adılları veya belirteçler) yararlanma veya bağlamı sınırlama gibi) değerlendireceğim. -/- Abstract: In his “Sense and Reference” (1948), Frege makes his famous distinction between the sense and the reference of a proper name (and other signs) and discusses at length the significance, necessity and consequences of the distinction, but he explains how the sense of a proper name should be understood very briefly in a footnote. According to him, for example, the sense of the proper name “Aristotle” can be taken as the pupil of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great or the teacher of Alexander the Great who was born in Stagira. What is interesting here is that the definite descriptions given as the possible senses of this proper name do themselves contain proper names too. Since the sense is something compositional for Frege, which means the sense of a linguistic sign is determined by its constituents (if there are any), in order to determine the sense of definite descriptions in question, we should first determine the senses of proper names they contain and substitute these senses with the proper names themselves. This process should continue until no proper name remains. However, it does not seem easy to find a definite description which describes the object of a proper name uniquely but contains no proper name itself. For instance, could we find appropriate senses that contain no proper name for “Plato”, “Alexander the Great” and “Stagira”? It does not seem likely. A problem of infinite regress appears to arise. Can Frege solve this problem, which poses a serious threat for his sensereference distinction? I will explore this problem in this paper. After explaining the problem, I will discuss the options (e.g. turning to indexicals or context restriction) Frege can take to deal with it. (shrink)

La argumentación de Frege contra la definibilidad de la verdad pretende mostrar que una definición de verdad es circular o nos involucra en un regreso al infinito. En la obra de Frege cabe distinguir dos nociones de verdad: la verdad expresada mediante el termine “verdadero” y la verdad expresada mediante la aserción. La argumentación de Frege no muestra que el términe “verdadero” sea indefinible, pero, si se acepta la concepción de Frege acerca de la aserción, de su argumentación, adecuadamente reformulada, (...) cabe concluir la indefinibilidad de la verdad en su segunda acepción.Frege’s argumentation against the definability of truth aims to show that a definition of truth is circular or involves us in an infinite regress. In Frege’s work two notions of truth can be distinguished: truth expressed by the word “true” and truth conveyed by the assertion. Frege’s argumentation does not show that the word “true” is undefinable, but, if Frege’s view on assertion is accepted, then from his argumentation, suitably reformulated, the undefinability of truth in the second sense can be concluded. (shrink)

Mates’s Puzzle has flown below many philosophers’ radar, despite its relations to both Frege’s Puzzle and the Paradox of Analysis. We explain the relations amongst these puzzles on the way to arguing that Mates’s Puzzle suggests a generalization of Frege’s Puzzle, and of the sense-reference distinction itself, in the form of hierarchy of senses. We explain how Mates’s Puzzle and the hierarchy, to different degrees, illuminate each other, and how their connection is missed in the literature. However, we (...) argue that the potential of Mates’s Puzzle to illuminate the hierarchy is yet to be fully actualised. We suggest that in order to do better, we need to formulate Mates’s Puzzle as a puzzle in the philosophy of thought and not as puzzle in the philosophy of language. What is needed, to which the present paper is a precursor, is an account of the cognitive significance of higher-order senses. (shrink)

[ES] Esta es una discusión de algunos temas vagamente conectados en los artículos de Saul Kripke «The first person» y «Frege’s theory of sense and reference». [EN] This is a discussion of some loosely connected issues in Saul Kripke’s articles «The first person» and «Frege’s theory of sense and reference».

By a well-known result of Cook and Reckhow [S.A. Cook, R.A. Reckhow, The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems, Journal of Symbolic Logic 44 36–50; R.A. Reckhow, On the lengths of proofs in the propositional calculus, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 1976], all Frege systems for the classical propositional calculus are polynomially equivalent. Mints and Kojevnikov [G. Mints, A. Kojevnikov, Intuitionistic Frege systems are polynomially equivalent, Zapiski Nauchnyh Seminarov POMI 316 129–146] have recently shown p-equivalence of (...) Frege systems for the intuitionistic propositional calculus in the standard language, building on a description of admissible rules of IPC by Iemhoff [R. Iemhoff, On the admissible rules of intuitionistic propositional logic, Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 281–294]. We prove a similar result for an infinite family of normal modal logics, including K4, GL, S4, and. (shrink)

The axiom of infinity states that infinite sets exist. I will argue that this axiom lacks justification. I start by showing that the axiom is not self-evident, so it needs separate justification. Following Maddy’s :481–511, 1988) distinction, I argue that the axiom of infinity lacks both intrinsic and extrinsic justification. Crucial to my project is Skolem’s From Frege to Gödel: a source book in mathematical logic, 1879–1931, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, pp. 290–301, 1922) distinction between a theory of real (...) sets, and a theory of objects that theory calls “sets”. While Dedekind’s argument fails, his approach was correct: the axiom of infinity needs a justification it currently lacks. This epistemic situation is at variance with everyday mathematical practice. A dilemma ensues: should we relax epistemic standards or insist, in a skeptical vein, that a foundational problem has been ignored? (shrink)

[ES] Gottlob Frege posiblemente era el primer filósofo analítico. La exégesis de su doctrina quedó durante varias décadas restringida casi naturalmente al ámbito de la filosofía analítica y angloparlante. El método que Frege heredó a la filosofía analítica se basa en el análisis abstracto y formal, y la aprehensión de su doctrina se desarrolló bajo el supuesto –tomado casi por autoevidente- que éste método es el único correcto para dar cuenta de los problemas filosóficos más fundamentales, muy particularmente el de (...) desarrollar una teoría de significado. Igualmente se asumía y asume todavía con cierto automatismo que las preocupaciones filosóficas de Frege son fundamentalmente las mismas de la filosofía analítica y las que no caben en este supuesto se desechan fácilmente como anacrónicas o absurdas. Este acercamiento al pensamiento de Frege exclusivamente bajo los supuestos de la filosofía analítica, sus méritos no obstante, no toma en cuenta el ambiente anti-naturalista y neo-kantiano en el cual Frege formó sus convicciones fundamentales. Algunos aspectos contenciosos como, por ejemplo, el principio de contexto, una posible jerarquía de sentidos indirectos o la suposición, casi tácita, de que la doctrina de Frege es una teoría sobre expresiones referenciales, aparecen en una luz diferente si nos damos cuenta de que su intento de construir un sistema es, en cuanto a filosofía, en el fondo una respuesta a problemas que Frege encontró en el sistema de Kant. [EN] Gottlob Frege was quite possibly the first analytical philosopher. For several decades the study of his teachings restricted itself almost naturally to the sphere of analytical and English speaking philosophy. The very method which Frege might have impressed upon analytical philosophy takes off with abstract and formal analysis and the apprehension of his doctrine developed under the assumption –taken to be almost self-evident- that this method is the only one capable of correctly accounting for the most fundamental philosophical problems, especially bringing forth a comprehensive theory of meaning. Hence it was taken for granted with certain automatism that the Frege´s philosophical worries were initially identical in its origins with those of contemporary analytical philosophy and those not amenable to easy adoptions are discharged as absurd anachronisms when viewed against current doctrines. Approaching Fregean thought exclusively under the assumptions of analytical philosophy, while having merit, does not take into account the anti-naturalist and neo-Kantian background which influenced the modelling of Frege’s fundamental convictions. Some contentious aspects like for example the context principle, a possible hierarchy of indirect senses or the almost tacit assumption that Frege’s doctrine is a theory about referential expressions appear in a different light, once we become aware that his attempt at system-construction, as far as it concerns philosophy, is fundamentally an answer to problems which Frege found in Kant’s system. (shrink)

In this article, as implied by the title, I intend to argue for the unattainability of Cantor’s Absolute at least in terms of the proof-theoretical means of set-theory and of the theory of large cardinals. For this reason a significant part of the article is a critical review of the progress of set-theory and of mathematical foundations toward resolving problems which to the one or the other degree are associated with the concept of infinity especially the one beyond that of (...) the natural intuition of natural numbers. Naturally the review includes the foundation and development of the theory of large cardinals, especially after Cohen’s revolutionary introduction of the forcing method, insofar as it paved the way toward a transcendence of the delimitative character of Gödel’s constructible universe L and further toward ever stronger infinity assumptions. Given that Cantor in his theory of transfinite numbers defined the mathematical absolute in ontological rather than concrete mathematical terms, I proceed in the last section to a philosophical discussion with certain prompts from phenomenology regarding the transposability of the formal conception of the infinite to the level of subjective constitution and argue in these terms on the infeasibility of acceding to an ‘absolute’ infinite cardinality. Of course the argumentation is strongly based on a view of the set-theoretical universe V of von Neumann’s cumulative hierarchy as a formal representative of the essential traits one would seek from a model of Cantor’s Absolute. It is also based on the conclusions reached from the whole discussion within the context of formal-theoretical structures as such. (shrink)

The paper formulates and proves a strengthening of ‘Frege’s Theorem’, which states that axioms for second-order arithmetic are derivable in second-order logic from Hume’s Principle, which itself says that the number of Fs is the same as the number ofGs just in case the Fs and Gs are equinumerous. The improvement consists in restricting this claim to finite concepts, so that nothing is claimed about the circumstances under which infinite concepts have the same number. ‘Finite Hume’s Principle’ also suffices (...) for the derivation of axioms for arithmetic and, indeed, is equivalent to a version of them, in the presence of Frege’s definitions of the primitive expressions of the language of arithmetic. The philosophical significance of this result is also discussed. (shrink)

Nominalists should give up on one of Frege’s semantic tenets, and adopt an account on which the truth-value of a sentence depends on the senses, rather than the referents, of its syntactic constituents. That way, sentences like ‘2+2=4’ and ‘Hamlet did not exist’ might be true, without components like ‘2’ and ‘Hamlet’ having a referent.

This book is in the Studies in Philosophy: Outstanding Dissertations series. Its central theme is that Frege’s concept-notation is inadequate because it does not formalize his semantic theory after the introduction of the sense-reference distinction in 1891. This failing, according to Klement, opens Frege up to a number of philosophical and logical challenges that can be met only by completing the project of showing “how Frege’s mature semantic views would be incorporated into his mature logical system”, a project which, Klement (...) plausibly argues, Frege would have endorsed. This involves: allowing the concept-notation to represent explicitly what is expressed in natural language with indirect constructions such as “said that...” or “believes that... ”; allowing principles to be formulated over this notion which capture inferences involving indirect constructions such as: The Morning Star is a planet, Gottlob believes the Morning Star is a planet, so, Gottlob believes something true; being able to respond to certain objections to Frege’s views, some first bruited by Russell and in later correspondence, others involving the identity conditions on intensional entities and “quantifying in” ; making the concept-notation reflect Frege’s ontology; and evaluating the consistency of Frege’s ontology. The chapters of this book are devoted to fulfilling this project “based upon a careful reading of Frege’s own works”, and their contents are mostly self-explanatory. Chapter 2 sets out the formal apparatus of the Grundgeseze, even the bits Frege left out. Chapter 3 is the most philosophical. Senses are construed as interpersonally accessible information uniquely true of the references they determine—senses are objects and functions in the “third realm.” Singular terms are associated with an impossibly rich hierarchy of senses as objects. Functors, including predicates, are associated with senses as functions. Sentences are associated with thoughts as objects, composed of constituent sense-functions, and in many cases, also sense-objects. Robust compositionality at the level of sense raises the question of the nature of the relation between constituents and the whole—is it functional, or not? Compositionality potentially conflicts with a number of other claims, and Klement’s conclusion is reasonable: “the context principle, the priority thesis, and the possibility of there existing multiple decompositions for the same Gedanke, do not pose any great difficulty for the compositionality principle or the understanding of Gedanke as having determinate inner structures”. Chapter 4 sets out Church’s original system and investigates reformulations suggested by Church himself, Kaplan, and others. Chapter 5 presents Klement’s formalization of an intensional logic of sense and reference, based on the results of chapters 2 and 4, and sufficient for indirect speech and quantifying-in, but containing a contradiction. Chapter 6 takes up arguments of early Russell, Searle, and Bergmann. Chapter 7 addresses strategies for repairing the inconsistencies of chapter 5, but in a Fregean spirit: dropping some realms of entities, restricting their number, or modifying our conception of their nature. (shrink)

In this volume--the first, focused study of Hume on time and identity--Baxter focuses on Hume’s treatment of the concept of numerical identity, which is central to Hume's famous discussions of the external world and personal identity. Hume raises a long unappreciated, and still unresolved, difficulty with the concept of identity: how to represent something as "a medium betwixt unity and number." Superficial resemblance to Frege’s famous puzzle has kept the difficulty in the shadows. Hume’s way of addressing it makes sense (...) only in the context of his unorthodox theory of time. Baxter shows the defensibility of that theory against past dismissive interpretations, especially of Hume’s stance on infinite divisibility. Later the author shows how the difficulty underlies Hume’s later worries about his theory of personal identity, in a new reading motivated by Hume’s important appeals to consciousness. Baxter casts Hume throughout as an acute metaphysician, and reconciles this side of Hume with his overarching Pyrrhonian skepticism. (shrink)

Quine’s way of dealing with the semantical paradoxes (Ways of Paradox, pp. 9-10) is criticized. The criticism is based on three premises: (1) no learnable language has infinitely many semantical primitives; (2) any language of which Quine’s theory is true has infinitely many semantical primitives; (3) English is a learnable language. The conclusion drawn is that Quine’s theory is not true of English.

The paper formulates and proves a strengthening of 'Frege's Theorem', which states that axioms for second-order arithmetic are derivable in second-order logic from Hume's Principle, which itself says that the number of Fs is the same as the number of Gs just in case the Fs and Gs are equinumerous. The improvement consists in restricting this claim to finite concepts, so that nothing is claimed about the circumstances under which infinite concepts have the same number. 'Finite Hume's Principle' (...) also suffices for the derivation of axioms for arithmetic and, indeed, is equivalent to a version of them, in the presence of Frege's definitions of the primitive expressions of the language of arithmetic. The philosophical significance of this result is also discussed. (shrink)

Let a be a Kleene's ordinal notation of a nonzero computable ordinal. We give a sufficient condition on a, so that for every \documentclass{article}\usepackage{amssymb}\begin{document}\pagestyle{empty}$\Sigma ^{-1}_a$\end{document}‐computable family of two embedded sets, i.e., two sets A, B, with A properly contained in B, the Rogers semilattice of the family is infinite. This condition is satisfied by every notation of ω; moreover every nonzero computable ordinal that is not sum of any two smaller ordinals has a notation that satisfies this condition. On (...) the other hand, we also give a sufficient condition on a, that yields that there is a \documentclass{article}\usepackage{amssymb}\begin{document}\pagestyle{empty}$\Sigma ^{-1}_a$\end{document}‐computable family of two embedded sets, whose Rogers semilattice consists of exactly one element; this condition is satisfied by all notations of every successor ordinal bigger than 1, and by all notations of the ordinal ω + ω; moreover every computable ordinal that is sum of two smaller ordinals has a notation that satisfies this condition. We also show that for every nonzero n ∈ ω, or n = ω, and every notation a of a nonzero ordinal there exists a \documentclass{article}\usepackage{amssymb}\begin{document}\pagestyle{empty}$\Sigma ^{-1}_a$\end{document}‐computable family of cardinality n, whose Rogers semilattice consists of exactly one element. (shrink)

It is widely agreed by philosophers that the so-called “Frege-Russell definition of natural number” is actually an assertion concerning the nature of the numbers and that it cannot be regarded as a definition in the ordinary mathematical sense. On the basis of the reasoning in this paper it is clear that the Frege-Russell definition contradicts the following three principles (taken together): (1) each number is the same entity in each possible world, (2) each number exists in each possible world, (3) (...) some entities existing in the actual world do not exist in every possible world. Since these principles seem to be true, the paper is a refutation of the Frege-Russell definition. The paper does more. It shows that the contradictory of the Frege-Russell definition follows even when principles 2 and 3 are replaced by one considerably weaker principle. The ideas contained in the paper are related to two earlier objections to the definition. The first, sometimes attributed to the mathematician, C. S. Keyser, is that existence of the numbers as defined implies the existence of infinitely many particulars in each possible world. The second is, in effect, an idea which is said to have led Whitehead to reject the definition of number to which he had subscribed in Principia Mathematica. Whitehead is supposed to have said that he could not believe that the number two changes every “time twins are born”. The mathematician H. Jeffreys expressed similar ideas [Philos. of Sci. 5 (1938), 434–451]. One of the merits of the author’s work is that it refutes the Frege-Russell definition without the need to take sides on controversial points presupposed by the Keyser and Whitehead objections. The objections made by the author are therefore not to be identified with the Keyser and Whitehead objections. Even if the author’s work is to be regarded as a refinement and integration of previous ideas, it is nevertheless a contribution—not only because the basic points are well worth repeating but also because the refinements are logically significant improvements and because the author has stated them clearly and concisely in the idiom of contemporary philosophy. (shrink)

We consider ω n -automatic structures which are relational structures whose domain and relations are accepted by automata reading ordinal words of length ω n for some integer n ≥ 1. We show that all these structures are ω-tree-automatic structures presentable by Muller or Rabin tree automata. We prove that the isomorphism relation for ω 2 -automatic (resp. ω n -automatic for n > 2) boolean algebras (respectively, partial orders, rings, commutative rings, non commutative rings, non commutative groups) is not (...) determined by the axiomatic system ZFC. We infer from the proof of the above result that the isomorphism problem for ω n -automatic boolean algebras, n ≥ 2, (respectively, rings, commutative rings, non commutative rings, non commutative groups) is neither a ${\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{2}^{1}-\mathrm{s}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}$ nor a ${\mathrm{\Pi }}_{2}^{1}-\mathrm{s}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}$ . We obtain that there exist infinitely many ω n -automatic, hence also ω-tree-automatic, atomless boolean algebras $\mathcal{B}_{n}$ , n ≥ 1, which are pairwise isomorphic under the continuum hypothesis CH and pairwise non isomorphic under an alternate axiom AT, strengthening a result of [14]. (shrink)