Search

In What is Philosophy?, Deleuze and Guattari critique the relationship between formal logic and philosophy. They argue that since philosophy is the creation of concepts that are intensional, and formal logic reduces concepts to their extension, formal logic then has no special providence to decide philosophical questions. This may strike the logic-inclined philosopher as outdated given that there are now formal intensional logics designed to model meaning rather than reference. However, it will be shown that these logics too fail to express the concept in a way that preserves its philosophical import. Doing so requires contrasting Deleuze and Guattari's account of the concept with Frege's to show how the latter persists even in intensional logics in the form of mathematical functions that are ultimately referential. This then results in support for Deleuze and Guattari's claim that formal logic is a useful tool, but that it is incapable of adjudicating philosophical disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This very brief paper provides plausible answers to the two residual questions that Jamie Tappenden states, but leaves unanswered, in his 2024 paper 'Following Bobzien: Some notes on Frege's development and engagement with his environment', namely, why Frege read Sigwart's Logik and what caused Frege to read Prantl. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Loosely connected reflections on some issues raised by Susanne Bobzien concerning the extent to which Frege interacted with scholars in his environment, and what he may have learned from them. I first note a pattern in Frege's pre-Grundlagen writings: his references to other logicians tend to be in response to criticism. I then discuss the period 1885–1891, suggesting that Frege may have been more engaged with his teaching and his colleagues than is sometimes believed, in response to the 'unsatisfied need for communication' that he describes in an 1882 letter. Finally, I explore one of the ways that the influence of Frege's environment may be reflected in the language and philosophical framing he uses to communicated with a philosophical audience, noting the ways that the philosophical language and metaphors of Grundlagen, §88 may have been shaped by Frege's relationship with Rudolf Eucken. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spoken sentences have parts. Therefore they take time to speak. For instance, when you say, 'Socrates is running', you begin by uttering the subject term Socrates, before carrying on to the predicate. But are the corresponding thoughts also composite? And are such thoughts extended across time, like their spoken counterparts? Peter Abelard gave an affirmative response to both questions. Alberic of Paris denied the first and, as a corollary, denied the second. Here, I first set out Abelard's account. I then present a series of arguments against Abelard, reconstructed from (sometimes fragmentary) manuscripts associated with Alberic's school. I conclude with an observation about present philosophy of language: this twelfth-century debate points to some undefended (and largely unstated) assumptions common to more recent thinking about propositions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gottlob Frege is an aletheic objectualist who regards truth as an object. For him, truth is the truth-value True, which is an object referred to by true sentences. Some interpreters argue that Frege's claim that the True is an object is merely a byproduct of the technical features of his formal logic, Begriffsschrift. However, Frege's works instead suggest that aletheic objectualism constitutes his philosophical position on the metaphysics of truth. Although Fregean aletheic objectualism may seem counterintuitive and unfruitful, it is, in fact, quite useful. Viewing truth as an object provides a new explanation for why there is a pro tanto reason to consider false assertion flawed. This explanation in turn strengthens support for the popular view that assertion is a norm-laden speech act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The problems of clarifying the fundamental logical and mathematical concepts, and hence of accomplishing a truly radical grounding of logic and mathematics, were precisely what motivated the very beginnings of Husserl's phenomenology. This paper is divided into two main parts. The first part focuses on the meaning and structure of Husserl's explanation of the "logical and psychological" nature of fundamental arithmetical concepts. Particular emphasis is placed on the strategy of Philosophy of Arithmetics (1891) of analysing cardinal numbers in concepts (pivotal yet just as much harmful to philosophy) such as Vorstellungen, mental phenomena and representations. Together with Arend Heyting and Hermann Weyl, it was the phenomenologist-mathematician Oskar Becker who was the main actor in the second round in the complex dialogue between meta-mathematics and phenomenological philosophy. The second part of this paper aims to clarify Becker's attempt to apply the theory of actualization of intentionality to the problem of the mode of being of the mathematical and the criterion of mathematical existence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Primitivist theories of truth have been defended by some of the luminaries of analytic philosophy, including the early Moore and Russell, Frege, Davidson, and Sosa. In this paper, I take up a contemporary primitivist theory that has been systematically developed throughout a sizeable body of work but has yet to receive sustained critical attention—Jamin Asay's primitivist deflationism. Asay's major ambitions are to defend a novel primitivist account of the concept truth and to harmonise that account with a deflationary theory of the property truth. I will elaborate a thoroughgoing critique of primitivist deflationism, arguing that we have reason to doubt all of the five theses that constitute the view. Along the way, I will also highlight a number of possible escape routes for the primitivist deflationist, explaining how they can make the view more resilient even as they compel us to rework some of its central commitments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki is the property of Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Historii Nauki and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper aims to construct a picture of knowledge out of Frege's comments on truth, judgment, assertion, and knowledge. Frege takes truth to be an object, and the act of judgment to be the act of non-judgmental identification of truth qua an object with the reference of a sentence. For him, the propositional knowledge that p is the non-propositional knowledge of the identity between truth and |p|. Propositional knowledge thusly understood is produced by our knowledge of truth qua an object, which is constituted by our abilities to identify truth as such. The Fregean picture of knowledge provides a tight connection between knowledgehow, objectual knowledge, and propositional knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bu makaleyle yapılmak istenen, 20.yy felsefesinin öncü filozoflarından Gottlob Frege’nin, aritmetik önermeleri, sembolik bir mantık dili aracılığıyla formelleştirme girişiminin nişanesi olan formel mantık terminolojisini irdelemek ve ‘fonksiyon - argüman’ ayrımını yargılara nasıl uyguladığını serimlemektir. Öte yandan bu ayrım açısından önem arz eden ‘değer’ teriminin üç farklı anlamda kullanılmış olmasından doğan çelişkileri bertaraf edebilmek amacıyla ‘argüman değeri’, ‘fonksiyon değeri’ ve ‘doğruluk değeri’ kavramları arasındaki ayrım açıklanmaktadır. Bu ayrım nezdinde ‘değer’ teriminin üç farklı kullanımı, üç farklı terim üzerinden ifade edilmeye çalışılmaktadır. ‘Değer’, ‘fonksiyon değeri’ ve ‘doğruluk değeri’ kavramları yerine sırasıyla, ‘argüman’, ‘düşünce’ ve ‘gönderim’ kavramlarının kullanılması önerilmekte ve bu önerinin dayanakları açıklanmaktadır. Bahsi geçen konuya dair bir şeyler söyleyebilmek için filozofun, yargıları, formel mantık diliyle ifade etme tarzına ve fonksiyon-argüman ayrımına da değinilmesi gerektiği için ‘değer’ terimine dair terminolojik analize, bu konular özetlendikten sonra geçilecektir. Dolayısıyla bu makale, Frege terminolojisinde ‘değer’ teriminin taşıdığı farklı anlam ve işlevlerden doğabilecek bir belirsizliğin önünü almak üzere ‘fonksiyon-argüman’ ayrımını, ‘değer’ terimi rehberliğinde açıklamaktadır.

This work addresses the critical discussion featured in the contemporary literature about two well-known paradoxes belonging to different philosophical traditions, namely Frege’s puzzling claim that “the concept horse is not a concept” and Gongsun Long’s “white horse is not horse”. We first present the source of Frege’s paradox and its different interpretations, which span from plain rejection to critical analysis, to conclude with a more general view of the role of philosophy as a fight against the misunderstandings that come from the different uses of language (a point later developed by the “second” Wittgenstein). We then provide an overview of the ongoing discussions related to the Bai Ma Lun paradox, and we show that its major interpretations include—as in the case of Frege’s paradox—dismissive accounts that regard it as either useless or wrong, as well as attempts to interpret and repair the argument. Resting on our reading of Frege’s paradox as an example of the inescapability of language misunderstandings, we advance a similar line of interpretation for the paradox in the Bai Ma Lun: both the paradoxes, we suggest, can be regarded as different manifestations of similar concerns about language, and specifically about the difficulty of referring to concepts via language.

Copyright of Selçuk University Journal of Faculty of Letters is the property of Selcuk Universitesi Edebiyat Fakultesi Dergisi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The present article reviews the Polish-language edition of Gottlob Frege’s scientific correspondence. In the article, I discuss the material hitherto unpublished in Polish in relation to the remainder of Frege’s works. First of all, I inquire into the role and nature of definitions. Then, I consider Frege’s recognition criteria for sameness of thoughts. In the article’s third part, I study letters devoted to the principle of semantic compositionality, while in the fourth part I discuss Frege’s remarks concerning the context principle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to examine Frege's view of the context principle in his mature philosophical doctrine. Here, the author argues that the context principle is embodied in the contextual explanation of value-ranges presented in Basic Laws of Arithmetic. The contextual explanation of value-ranges plays essentially the same role as the context principle in The Foundations of Arithmetic. It is supposed to show how a reference to natural numbers is possible. Moreover, the author argues against the view that the context principle should be separated from the recarving thesis. This aspect of Frege's view leads the author to the rejection of the purely referential view of the context principle, which is fairly widely accepted in the current literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper continues mv discussion with Michael Dummett on Frege's senses, published in The Philosophy of Michael Dummett* 1 and further developed in Diametros.2 In his reply to my original paper, Dummett came to agree with me that senses are neither objects nor functions, since thev have a categoriallv different kind of linguistico-metaphysical function to perform. He then asks how we might quantify over senses, if they are neither objects nor functions. He discusses two main options, and finds one unviable and the other "very un-Fregean."31 then offer a Fregean or neo-Fregean option in my rejoinder.4 5 And I still hold that this way out will do the job, or is at least plausible enough that tire burden of persuasion is on those who disagree. But I hope to show in this paper that on a more complete examination of Frege, there are at least twenty Fregean or neo-Fregean ways out, with the one I proposed being option (17). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses an issue with the sign ' ' in Frege's mature version of Begriffsschrift, i.e., the version in 'Function and Concept' and Grundgesetze. The sign is a performative for asserting in that writing down ' ' is equivalent to asserting that p. Frege further says that writing ' ' is also equivalent to identifying the reference of 'p' with the truth-value True. It looks as if he holds that asserting that p consists in identifying the True with the reference of 'p'. Frege's commitment to it, however, seems to encounter a number of tensions. This paper aims to show that these tensions can be avoided by endorsing a non-assertive conception of identification under which making an identification is not making an identity assertion. The suggested reading leads to an entirely different understanding of the compositionality of the sign ' ' as well as Frege's conception of assertion and judgment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gottlob Frege takes logic to be the science of truth throughout his career. However, the mature Frege makes remarks which seem to go against the idea that logic is the science of truth. This paper shows that we can explain away this tension in the mature Frege's conception of logic if we accept that truth is an object, that is, the truth‐vale True qua the reference of a sentence, for Frege. Even though the main thesis of this paper is a conditional, I provide reasons why we ought to consider the possibility seriously that truth is an object for Frege. I also explain how we can make sense of Frege's conception of logic as the science of truth while accepting truth is an object. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1919, when his Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus), was finished but still unpublished, Wittgenstein sent the manuscript to Frege, and, as a consequence of that, they exchanged several fairly polemic letters in 1919 - 1920. Only Frege's letters were preserved. The letters are highly compressed in content, and offer an interesting insight in how, mostly critically, one of the authors of whom Wittgenstein held highest esteem, thought about the content, style, and organisation of the manuscript. At the same time, we can get some impression from Frege's letters how Wittgenstein reacted to his initial letter addressing the Tractatus, and how the subsequent exchange went. In this paper, I offer several observations concerning their exchange, and I compare it to the parallel exchange on the same matter between Wittgenstein and Russell. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vološinov ([1929]1973) is one of the most frequently cited works in studies on reported speech, but its interpretation varies considerably between authors. Within the linguistic anthropological tradition, its central message is often conflated with Erving Goffman’s ‘speaker roles’, and in a recent publication, Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018) marry ideas they attribute to Vološinov (1973) and Mikhail M. Bakhtin to those by the formal semanticist Donald Davidson. Responding to Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018) (and a shorter version of a similar argument in Goddard and Wierzbicka (2019), this paper seeks to explore the philosophical foundations of reported speech research, particularly in relation to Vološinov/Bakhtin. It suggests that reported speech research is motivated by two fundamentally distinct goals, one here labelled ‘Fregean’ and the other ‘Bakhtinian’. Questions and methods used in both of these research traditions lead to two radically different understandings of reported speech. This affects the applicability of the definition of direct/indirect speech Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018) propose. It also motivates an alternative approach to reported speech advocated by the current author and others that is criticised by Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018). The article further seeks to rehabilitate the analysis of Wierzbicka (1974), which Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018) partially reject. Whereas Wierzbicka (1974) treats direct and indirect speech as constructions of English, Goddard and Wierzbicka (2018) elevate the opposition to a universal, which belies the cultural sensitivity to semantic variation the authors display in other work. The paper concludes with a brief note about the semantic status of ‘say’ in Australian languages and states that the relevance of Vološinov ([1929]1973) is undiminished, also in the light of recent developments in language description. It remains a highly original study whose implications are yet to fully impact research on reported speech.

In the explanations of logical laws and inference rules of the mature version of Begriffsschrift in Grundgesetze, Frege uses the predicate "... is the True." Scholars like Greimann maintain that this predicate is a metalinguistic truth-predicate for Frege. This paper examines an argument for this claim that is based on the "nominal reading" of Frege's conception of sentences—the claim that for Frege a sentence " $ p $ " is equivalent to a nonsentential phrase like "the truth-value of the thought that $ p $." In particular, this paper attempts to establish two points concerning this argument based on the nominal reading. First, the argument implies a claim about the nature of assertion which Frege repeatedly denies in his mature works. Secondly, the nominal reading on which the argument depends is false. A sentence " $ p $ " is not equivalent to a nonsentential phrase like "the truth-value of the thought that $ p $ " for Frege. Our discussion will lead to an important lesson about Frege's conception of sentences and of assertion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For over twenty years, Frege tried to find the foundations of arithmetic through logic, and by doing this, he attempted to establish the truth and certainty of the knowledge. However, when he believed his work wasdone, Bertrand Russell sent him a letter pointing out a paradox, known as Russell‟s paradox. It is often considered that Russell identified the paradox in Frege‟s theories. However, as shown in this paper, Russell, Frege and also George Cantor contributedsignificantly to the identification of the paradox. In 1902, Russell encouraged Frege to reconsider a portion of his work based in a paradox built from Cantor‟s theories. Previously, in 1885, Cantor had warned Frege about taking extensions of concepts in the construction of his system. With these considerations, Frege managed to identify the precise law and definitions that allowed the generation of the paradox in his system. The objective of this paper is to present a historical reconstruction of the paradox in Frege‟s publications and discuss it considering the correspondences exchanged between him and Russell. We shall take special attention to the role played by each of these mathematicians in the identification of the paradox and its developments. We also will show how Frege anticipated the solutions and new theories that would arise when dealing with logico-mathematical paradoxes, including but not limited to Russell‟s paradox.

DOI: http://doi.org/10.26333/stsen.xxx.04 In 1893 and 1903, two volumes of Frege’s most important work Grundegezte der Arithmetik were published. This period can be called the peak of Frege’s logicism. Although the subject of truth in Frege’s logical and philosophical works has been repeatedly investigated there is a lack of studies on his view in this period, especially in the Polish literature.In this article, therefore, I carry out the following research task: to collect and order Frege’s statements about the truth during the period of publishing two volumes of Grundegezte der Arithmetik. I will refer to texts published during Frege’s life, published posthumously and his correspondence. Particularly noteworthy are: Grundegezte der Arithmetik and the unpublished Logik (1897–1898). That iswhy separate sections are devoted to these two items, and remarks on truth from other texts are grouped thematically: the problem of antinomy, geometry, expression of generality, and others. The subject of truth appears here in relation to logic, philosophy of language, philosophy of logic, philosophy of mathematics and ontology.

The article raises the question what is the content of Frege’s infamous notion of Bedeutung? It is claimed that the so–called standard interpretation of this notion – Bedeutung as referential relation between a name and an object – was developed and established evaluating Frege’s ideas in philosophy of language in isolation from his logicist ideas. However, precisely his logicist concerns have motivated Frege’s interest in semantic issues. A broader consideration of Frege’s works reveals an internalist and rationalist notion of meaning, that is based on the context principle, and that should not be reduced to mere reference. The question of the meaning of subsentential components, for Frege, is closely related to the question of the meaning of the whole sentence, that is, the meaning of sub–sentential components should be construed as secondary with regard to the meaning of the whole sentence.

According to psychologism, laws of logic and mathematics are not anything except generalized accounts of thought patterns which govern human's mind. Therefore, the content of laws of logic is merely subjective idea created by the human mind. If the structure of the mind was different from our actual structure, then the laws of logic would be something different from the laws existing now. For Frege, this theory is on the basis of the conceptualism and idealism of the meaning of the words. Frege believes that the meanings of propositions, which he called "Thought", are a distinct matter from "Ideas", which exist in every individual's mind. Frege's arguments endeavor to prove it via two basic reasonings, as stated in this article. The absence of common discourse, which changes language to an individual matter, as well as the presentation of "epistemological relativism" are two vicious consequences, which is the course of accepting the matter that there is no distinction between "Thought" and "Idea". In Frege’s view, if psychologism were true, everything would be reduced to "Idea". And if everything reduces to "Idea", "Thought" will be "Idea" as well; however, "Thought" is not "Idea". Therefore, psychalogism is void. When Frege tries to explain why Thought is not the same as Idea, he starts with the Idea properties. Frege believes that Ideas are dependent on individual (Individual-dependent), and are always dependent, hence, cannot exist without their owner independently. Each Idea only belongs to one person (individual) can never be the owner of another’s Idea. Our own Ideas naturally and essentially are so related to our consciousness realm that each Idea owned by every person is distinct from our own Idea only belonging to ours. If two persons have one Idea, it is necessary that Ideas exist independently from them, which is in contrast to the hypothesis and essence of Idea. In his first arguments, Frege declares that if Thought is the same as Idea, it would not be possible to have common perception about one Thought, therefore, identical meaning, and as a result conversation (common discourse), would not exist. So, language would change into an individual private matter. This outcome is a result of individual-dependent (relative to subjects) relative to characteristic of Idea. His second argument is in the same direction as the first one, stating that if Thought is the same as Idea, contradiction between two Thoughts would not be possible. Because there is no identical criterion by which people (person who are communicating) could evaluate their perception, verify the validity of their viewpoints, and discover the contradiction of their thoughts toward others. Also, dispute over Truth would be vain. It is like the quarrel between two persons who fight over being an original 100 Marks banknote in their pocket. Each of them believes that only the banknote in his/her own pocket is original, then all the science would not be only as superstition. Frege in his second arguments illustrate that epistemological relativism and individualism are vicious consequents of psychologism. This research investigates the criticism of some classic logicians and contemporary thinkers on Islamic philosophy. They have declared that Frege does not distinguish between conceptualism and psychologism and also between existence of Idea and its indication. Moreover, they criticize Frege's affirmative theory about grasping of thought. In this research, it becomes clear that Frege's objections to conceptualism (psychological individualism) are still valid. There is no convincing reply to these objections yet. The approach of this research concentrates on the Frege's negative reasoning in the criticism of psychologism, not on the Frege’s affirmative views on the manner of Thought perceptions.

Various critiques of important (early) analytic thinkers made by Alain Badiou in the late 1960s have been largely overlooked by continental philosophers and entirely overlooked by analytic philosophers. This paper looks in detail at Badiou’s 1969 essay ‟Mark and Lack,” providing an exposition and clarification of his direct and sustained critique of Gottlob Frege’s supposed ideological (rather than scientific) philosophical commitments. Badiou’s intellectual context is analyzed in some detail, not only explaining his theoretical debt to his then-master Louis Althusser, but also clarifying his understandings of the notions of ‟the scientific” and ‟the ideological” in light of the projects of Gaston Bachelard and Georges Canguilhem. A philosophical exposition of Badiou’s point-by-point critique of Frege’s conception of logic follows. Finally, the paper concludes with an analysis of the more general relevance of Badiou’s half-century-old critiques in light of developments in contemporary analytic metaphysics, especially those indebted to W. V. O. Quine and Donald Davidson. In essence, Davidson’s Fregean reconfiguration of Tarski’s work on truth (more explicit than, but not unrelated to, Quine’s work) places contemporary analytic metaphysics within the scope of what Badiou directly criticizes. It is suggested that Badiou’s critique find a place in discussions of analytic metaphysics.

Kant’s work remains alive and topical even after so many years. The present article deals with the basic issue of the method of argument. The present study concentrates on the problem of analyticity as formulated by Kant, its interpretation by Gottlob Frege, the issue of the categorical imperative, as well as the conception of the truth in Habermas’s reception of Kant.

This paper discusses the semantic assumption that Roman Suszko called “the Fregean Axiom.”According to the Fregean Axiom, a logical sentence is a name of its logical value, which means that all true sentences are names of one and the same object called “Truth,” and — by analogy —all false sentences are names of one and the same object called “False.” The Fregean Axiom is at odds with the common-sense intuition. Usually, we think that a sentence is not a name but an expression that states that a certain state of affairs occurs. The article analyzes the presuppositions underlying the axiom. The second part of the text discusses the consequences of either adoption or rejection of the axiom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper deals with the ontological status of numbers and considers Frege's proposal in Grundlagen upon the background of the Post-Kantian semantic turn in analytical philosophy. Through a more systematic study of his philosophical premises, it comes to unearth a first level paradox that would unset earlier still than it was exposed by Russell. It then studies an alternative path that, departing from Frege's initial premises, drives to a conception of numbers as synthetic a priori in a more Kantian sense. On this basis, it tentatively explores a possible derivation of basic logical rules on their behalf, suggesting a more rudimentary basis to inferential thinking, which supports reconsidering the difference between logical thinking and AI. Finally, it reflects upon the contributions of this approach to the problem of the a priori. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of an analytic tradition in philosophy is bound up with a newly intensified interest in logic, and Frege's development of a new form of logical notation--an early form of what is now called predicate logic--is one of the conditions that made that tradition possible. At the same time, the development of analytic philosophy is also tied to a turn away from what had until that time been a natural and often mutually beneficial exchange with poetry, drama, and fiction. It is easy to assume that the turn away from literature is a necessary consequence of the turn to logic. This essay argues that in fact there are good reasons to think that if we follow the turn to formal logic through, it instead pushes philosophy back into a transformed and perhaps deeper kind of conversation with literature. The terms that organize this renewed conversation are those of a shared preoccupation not with certain ideas or content but with the power of form. The upshot is that the turn to formal logic returns philosophy to a transformed version of the "ancient quarrel" with which it began. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The notion of the extension of a concept has been used in logic for a long time. It is usually considered to be closely connected to the intuitive notion of a set and thus seems as though it should be embedded into set theory. However, there are significant differences between this "logical" concept of set and the notion of set (class) as defined via standard axiomatic systems of set theory; it may, therefore, be quite misleading to consider the two concepts as being continuous with each other. When we look at the writings of Gottlob Frege and consider the development of his attitude to extensions, we can see what the differences consist in and which of the two notions is more apt to be used in foundations of logic. Frege himself eventually rejected sets entirely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Problems / Problemos is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

DOI: http://doi.org/10.26333/sts.xxxii2.04 GABRIELA BESLER GOTTLOB FREGE O PRAWDZIE W OKRESIE WYDAWANIA DWÓCH TOMÓW GRUNDGESETZE DER ARITHMETIK (1893–1903) ST R E S Z C Z E N I E: W latach 1893 i 1903 ukazały się dwa tomy najważniejszego dzieła Fregego Grundegezte der Arithmetik. Ten okres można nazwać „szczytem logicyzmu” Fregego. Chociaż temat prawdy w logiczno-filozoficznej twórczości Fregego był podejmowany wielokrotnie, to brakuje pozycji skupiającej się na badaniu poglądów w tym okresie. Dotyczy to w szczególności literatury polskiej. Moim zadaniem jest zebranie i uporządkowanie wszystkich wypowiedzi Fregego na temat prawdy w okresie wydawania wspomnianych tomów. Realizując to zadanie, badam użycie tego pojęcia w pierwszym tomie Grundegezte der Arithmetik oraz w niepublikowanym tekście Logik. Podejmuję zagadnienie funkcjonowania tego terminu w szczególnych kontekstach: antynomii, geometrii i wyrażania ogólności. Na koniec zasygnalizuję kwestię sposobu rozumienia późniejszych wypowiedzi Fregego na temat prawdy. Gabriela Besler Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach Instytut Filozofii E-mail: gabriela.besler@us.edu.pl ORCID: 0000-0002-1843-5198

I defend an interpretation of the Tractatus based on the following three theses: 1) The Wittgenstein’s work offers a double-layered vision of language, similar to the vision developed during his brief phenomenological period. 2) The so-called Tractarian ontology is actually a purely formal construction, entailed by the structure of what we shall refer to as the inner layer of language. 3) It should be recognized that the metaphysical residuum within the early Wittgenstein’s thought is a certain minimal form of transcendentalism, according to which language – or strictly speaking its ore – performs the function of the transcendental subject for itself. A crucial element of my position is the conclusion that, according to the Tractarian conception of language, the meaning of propositions is not only independent of empirical subjects, but also the condition of their possibility. This amounts to a resolute adaptation of Frege’s principled anti-psychologism on Wittgenstein’s part.

What most differentiates the Discrete from previous architectural paradigms? Architect and theorist Philippe Morel, who co‐founded Paris office EZCT Architecture & Design Research, examines related evolutions in theory and practice. The key, as he sees it, is a break away from anthropomorphism and rationalism, resulting in a truly computational architecture that is free from human‐imposed parameters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I offer an analysis of the sentence 'the concept horse is a concept'. It will be argued that the grammatical subject of this sentence, 'the concept horse ', indeed refers to a concept, and not to an object, as Frege once held. The argument is based on a criterion of proper-namehood according to which an expression is a proper name if it is so rendered in Frege's ideography. The predicate 'is a concept', on the other hand, should not be thought of as referring to a function. It will be argued that the analysis of sentences of the form ' C is a concept' requires the introduction of a new form of statement. Such statements are not to be thought of as having function–argument form, but rather the structure subject–copula–predicate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Litteraria Polonica is the property of Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Lodzkiego and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)