structure for 'Thought'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

18. Thought / D. Concepts / 3. Ontology of Concepts / c. Fregean concepts

[concepts as meanings, distinct from a word's reference]

20 ideas
Frege equated the concepts under which an object falls with its properties [Frege, by Dummett]
     Full Idea: Frege equated the concepts under which an object falls with its properties.
     From: report of Gottlob Frege (On Concept and Object [1892], p.201) by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics Ch.8
     A reaction: I take this to be false, as objects can fall under far more concepts than they have properties. I don't even think 'being a pencil' is a property of pencils, never mind 'being my favourite pencil', or 'not being Alexander the Great'.
Concepts are the ontological counterparts of predicative expressions [Frege, by George/Velleman]
     Full Idea: Concepts, for Frege, are the ontological counterparts of predicative expressions.
     From: report of Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891]) by A.George / D.J.Velleman - Philosophies of Mathematics Ch.2
     A reaction: That sounds awfully like what many philosophers call 'universals'. Frege, as a platonist (at least about numbers), I would take to be in sympathy with that. At least we can say that concepts seem to be properties.
An assertion about the concept 'horse' must indirectly speak of an object [Frege, by Hale]
     Full Idea: Frege had a notorious difficulty over the concept 'horse', when he suggests that if we wish to assert something about a concept, we are obliged to proceed indirectly by speaking of an object that represents it.
     From: report of Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891], Ch.2.II) by Bob Hale - Abstract Objects
     A reaction: This sounds like the thin end of a wedge. The great champion of objects is forced to accept them here as a façon de parler, when elsewhere they have ontological status.
A concept is a function whose value is always a truth-value [Frege]
     Full Idea: A concept in logic is closely connected with what we call a function. Indeed, we may say at once: a concept is a function whose value is always a truth-value. ..I give the name 'function' to what is meant by the 'unsaturated' part.
     From: Gottlob Frege (Function and Concept [1891], p.30)
     A reaction: So a function becomes a concept when the variable takes a value. Problems arise when the value is vague, or the truth-value is indeterminable.
A concept is a function mapping objects onto truth-values, if they fall under the concept [Frege, by Dummett]
     Full Idea: In later Frege, a concept could be taken as a particular case of a function, mapping every object on to one of the truth-values (T or F), according as to whether, as we should ordinarily say, that object fell under the concept or not.
     From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 1 (Basic Laws) [1893]) by Michael Dummett - The Philosophy of Mathematics 3.5
     A reaction: As so often in these attempts at explanation, this sounds circular. You can't decide whether an object truly falls under a concept, if you haven't already got the concept. His troubles all arise (I say) because he scorns abstractionist accounts.
Frege took the study of concepts to be part of logic [Frege, by Shapiro]
     Full Idea: Frege took the study of concepts and their extensions to be within logic.
     From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 1 (Basic Laws) [1893]) by Stewart Shapiro - Foundations without Foundationalism 7.1
     A reaction: This is part of the plan to make logic a universal language (see Idea 13664). I disagree with this, and with the general logicist view of the position of logic. The logical approach thins concepts out. See Deleuze/Guattari's horror at this.
Concepts are, precisely, the references of predicates [Frege, by Wright,C]
     Full Idea: For Frege concepts are, precisely, the Bedeutungen of predicates.
     From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Crispin Wright - Frege's Concept of Numbers as Objects 1.iv
     A reaction: On p.17 Wright challenges Frege's right to make that assumption.
A concept is a non-psychological one-place function asserting something of an object [Frege, by Weiner]
     Full Idea: A concept is a one-place function - something that can be asserted of an object - as found in 'Earth is a planet' and 'Venus is a planet'. This notion of concept does not belong to psychology at all.
     From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Joan Weiner - Frege Ch.4
     A reaction: This doesn't seem to leave room for the concept of the object or substance of which the something is asserted. In 'x is a planet' we need a concept of what x is. But then Frege will reduce the reference to a set of descriptions (i.e. functions).
Fregean concepts have precise boundaries and universal applicability [Frege, by Koslicki]
     Full Idea: Both precise boundaries and universal applicability are built into the very notion of a Fregean concept from the outset, while isolation and non-arbitrary division are additional criteria imposed on concepts.
     From: report of Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884]) by Kathrin Koslicki - Isolation and Non-arbitrary Division 2.1
     A reaction: The latter two criteria are for concepts which create counting units.
Psychological accounts of concepts are subjective, and ultimately destroy truth [Frege]
     Full Idea: Defining concepts psychologically, in terms of the nature of the human mind, makes everything subjective, and if we follow it through to the end, does away with truth.
     From: Gottlob Frege (Grundlagen der Arithmetik (Foundations) [1884], Intro)
     A reaction: This is the reason for Frege's passionate opposition to psychological approaches to thought. The problem, though, is to give an account in which the fixity of truth connects to the fluctuations of mental life. How does it do that??
'The concept "horse"' denotes a concept, yet seems also to denote an object [Frege, by McGee]
     Full Idea: The phrase 'the concept "horse"' can be the subject of a sentence, and ought to denote an object. But it clearly denotes the concept "horse". Yet Fregean concepts are said to be 'incomplete' objects, which led to confusion.
     From: report of Gottlob Frege (On Sense and Reference [1892]) by Vann McGee - Logical Consequence 4
     A reaction: This is the notorious 'concept "horse"' problem, which was bad news for Frege's idea of a concept.
Concepts only have a 'functional character', because they map to truth values, not objects [Dummett, by Davidson]
     Full Idea: Real functions map objects onto objects, but concepts map objects onto truth value, ...so Dummett says that concepts are not functions, but that they have a 'functional character'.
     From: report of Michael Dummett (Frege Philosophy of Language (2nd ed) [1973]) by Donald Davidson - Truth and Predication 6
We can use 'concept' for the reference, and 'conception' for sense [Wiggins]
     Full Idea: We can use the Fregean 'concept' on the level of reference and naming, and prefer the word 'conception' for the Kantian idea of the sense, or the information needed to understand the concept.
     From: David Wiggins (Sameness and Substance Renewed [2001], Pr.5)
     A reaction: This is a nice suggestion, and at first blush I think it should be adopted. Sometimes philosophers regret adopting a terminology several hundred years after it has been agreed.
Frege's puzzles suggest to many that concepts have sense as well as reference [Fodor]
     Full Idea: Philosophers in droves have held that Frege cases are convincing arguments that concepts have not just referents but also senses.
     From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3.2)
     A reaction: [Frege cases are puzzles where simple reference seems to lead to confusion] I take the Fregean approach to concepts (of Dummett, Peacocke) to attempt to give an account of the sense, once the reference is decided. Idea 12629 gives Fodor's view.
If concepts have sense, we can't see the connection to their causal powers [Fodor]
     Full Idea: How are we to understand the connection between the identity of a concept and its causal powers if concepts are (or have) senses? Answer: I haven't a clue.
     From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3.3)
     A reaction: This seems to be the key to Fodor's attack on Peacocke and other Fregeans - that while they pay lip-service to the project of naturalising thought, they are actually committing us to some sort of neo-platonism, by losing the causal links. See Idea 12636.
Belief in 'senses' may explain intentionality, but not mental processes [Fodor]
     Full Idea: Supposing the mind to be conversant with senses can, maybe, provide for a theory of the intentionality of mental states; but it seems to shed no light at all on the nature of mental processes (i.e. of mental state transitions).
     From: Jerry A. Fodor (LOT 2 [2008], Ch.3.3)
     A reaction: I would track this back to Frege's hostility to 'psychologism'. That is, Fregeans don't care about Fodor's problem, because all their accounts (of mathematics, of logic, and of concepts) treat the subject-matter as self-contained sui generis.
A sense is individuated by the conditions for reference [Peacocke]
     Full Idea: My basic Fregean idea is that a sense is individuated by the fundamental condition for something to be its reference.
     From: Christopher Peacocke (Truly Understood [2008], Intro)
     A reaction: For something to actually be its reference (as opposed to imagined reference), truth must be involved. This needs the post-1891 Frege view of such things, and not just the view of concepts as functions which he started with.
Fregean concepts have their essence fixed by reference-conditions [Peacocke]
     Full Idea: The Fregean view is that the essence of a concept is given by the fundamental condition for something to be its reference.
     From: Christopher Peacocke (Truly Understood [2008], 2.1)
     A reaction: Peacocke is a supporter of the Fregean view. How does this work for concepts of odd creatures in a fantasy novel? Or for mistaken or confused concepts? For Burge's 'arthritis in my thigh'? I don't reject the Fregean view.
The Fregean concept of GREEN is a function assigning true to green things, and false to the rest [Hart,WD]
     Full Idea: A Fregean concept is a function that assigns to each object a truth value. So instead of the colour green, the concept GREEN assigns truth to each green thing, but falsity to anything else.
     From: William D. Hart (The Evolution of Logic [2010], 2)
     A reaction: This would seem to immediately hit the renate/cordate problem, if there was a world in which all and only the green things happened to be square. How could Frege then distinguish the green from the square? Compare Idea 8245.
The phrase 'the concept "horse"' can't refer to a concept, because it is saturated [Potter]
     Full Idea: Frege's mirroring principle (that the structure of thoughts mirrors that of language) has the uncomfortable consequence that since the phrase 'the concept "horse"' is saturated, it cannot refer to something unsaturated, which includes concepts.
     From: Michael Potter (The Rise of Analytic Philosophy 1879-1930 [2020], 16 'Conc')