13886
|
Later Frege held that definitions must fix a function's value for every possible argument [Frege, by Wright,C]
|
|
Full Idea:
Frege later became fastidious about definitions, and demanded that they must provide for every possible case, and that no function is properly determined unless its value is fixed for every conceivable object as argument.
|
|
From:
report of Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 2 (Basic Laws) [1903]) by Crispin Wright - Frege's Concept of Numbers as Objects 3.xiv
|
|
A reaction:
Presumably definitions come in degrees of completeness, but it seems harsh to describe a desire for the perfect definition as 'fastidious', especially if we are talking about mathematics, rather than defining 'happiness'.
|
9845
|
We can't define a word by defining an expression containing it, as the remaining parts are a problem [Frege]
|
|
Full Idea:
Given the reference (bedeutung) of an expression and a part of it, obviously the reference of the remaining part is not always determined. So we may not define a symbol or word by defining an expression in which it occurs, whose remaining parts are known
|
|
From:
Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 2 (Basic Laws) [1903], §66)
|
|
A reaction:
Dummett cites this as Frege's rejection of contextual definitions, which he had employed in the Grundlagen. I take it not so much that they are wrong, as that Frege decided to set the bar a bit higher.
|
9886
|
Cardinals say how many, and reals give measurements compared to a unit quantity [Frege]
|
|
Full Idea:
The cardinals and the reals are completely disjoint domains. The cardinal numbers answer the question 'How many objects of a given kind are there?', but the real numbers are for measurement, saying how large a quantity is compared to a unit quantity.
|
|
From:
Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 2 (Basic Laws) [1903], §157), quoted by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics Ch.19
|
|
A reaction:
We might say that cardinals are digital and reals are analogue. Frege is unusual in totally separating them. They map onto one another, after all. Cardinals look like special cases of reals. Reals are dreams about the gaps between cardinals.
|
9887
|
Formalism misunderstands applications, metatheory, and infinity [Frege, by Dummett]
|
|
Full Idea:
Frege's three main objections to radical formalism are that it cannot account for the application of mathematics, that it confuses a formal theory with its metatheory, and it cannot explain an infinite sequence.
|
|
From:
report of Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 2 (Basic Laws) [1903], §86-137) by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics
|
|
A reaction:
The application is because we don't design maths randomly, but to be useful. The third objection might be dealt with by potential infinities (from formal rules). The second objection sounds promising.
|
12699
|
A body would be endless disunited parts, if it did not have a unifying form or soul [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
Without soul or form of some kind, a body would have no being, because no part of it can be designated which does not in turn consist of more parts. Thus nothing could be designated in a body which could be called 'this thing', or a unity.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (Conspectus libelli (book outline) [1678], A6.4.1988), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 1
|
|
A reaction:
The locution 'soul or form' is disconcerting, and you have to spend some time with Leibniz to get the hang of it. The 'soul' is not intelligent, and is more like a source of action and response.
|
12700
|
Form or soul gives unity and duration; matter gives multiplicity and change [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
Substantial form, or soul, is the principle of unity and duration, matter is that of multiplicity and change
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (Conspectus libelli (book outline) [1678], A6.4.1398-9), quoted by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 2
|
|
A reaction:
Leibniz was a fan of the unfashionable Aristotle, and tried to put a spin on his views consonant with contemporary Hobbesian mechanistic views. Oddly, he likes the idea that 'form' is indestructable, which I don't understand.
|
12736
|
If we understand God and his choices, we have a priori knowledge of contingent truths [Leibniz, by Garber]
|
|
Full Idea:
Insofar as we have some insight into how God chooses, we can know a priori the laws of nature that God chooses for this best of all possible worlds. In this way, it is possible to have genuine a priori knowledge of contingent truths.
|
|
From:
report of Gottfried Leibniz (Conspectus libelli (book outline) [1678], A6.4.1998-9) by Daniel Garber - Leibniz:Body,Substance,Monad 6
|
|
A reaction:
I think it would be doubtful whether our knowledge of God's choosings would count as a priori. How do we discover them? Ah! We derive God from the ontological argument, and his choosings from the divine perfection implied thereby.
|
11846
|
If we abstract the difference between two houses, they don't become the same house [Frege]
|
|
Full Idea:
If abstracting from the difference between my house and my neighbour's, I were to regard both houses as mine, the defect of the abstraction would soon be made clear. It may, though, be possible to obtain a concept by means of abstraction...
|
|
From:
Gottlob Frege (Grundgesetze der Arithmetik 2 (Basic Laws) [1903], §99)
|
|
A reaction:
Note the important concession at the end, which shows Frege could never deny the abstraction process, despite all the modern protests by Geach and Dummett that he totally rejected it.
|