30 ideas
| 9821 | A definition need not capture the sense of an expression - just get the reference right [Frege, by Dummett] |
| Full Idea: Frege expressly denies that a correct definition need capture the sense of the expression it defines: it need only get the reference right. | |
| From: report of Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894]) by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics Ch.3 | |
| A reaction: This might hit up against the renate/cordate problem, of two co-extensive concepts, where the definition gets the extension right, but the intension wrong. |
| 9585 | Since every definition is an equation, one cannot define equality itself [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Since every definition is an equation, one cannot define equality itself. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.327) | |
| A reaction: This seems a particularly nice instance of the general rule that 'you have to start somewhere'. It is a nice test case for the nature of meaning to ask 'what do you understand when you understand equality?', given that you can't define it. |
| 7785 | The use of plurals doesn't commit us to sets; there do not exist individuals and collections [Boolos] |
| Full Idea: We should abandon the idea that the use of plural forms commits us to the existence of sets/classes… Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. There are not two sorts of things in the world, individuals and collections. | |
| From: George Boolos (To be is to be the value of a variable.. [1984]), quoted by Henry Laycock - Object | |
| A reaction: The problem of quantifying over sets is notoriously difficult. Try http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/object/index.html. |
| 10699 | Does a bowl of Cheerios contain all its sets and subsets? [Boolos] |
| Full Idea: Is there, in addition to the 200 Cheerios in a bowl, also a set of them all? And what about the vast number of subsets of Cheerios? It is haywire to think that when you have some Cheerios you are eating a set. What you are doing is: eating the Cheerios. | |
| From: George Boolos (To be is to be the value of a variable.. [1984], p.72) | |
| A reaction: In my case Boolos is preaching to the converted. I am particularly bewildered by someone (i.e. Quine) who believes that innumerable sets exist while 'having a taste for desert landscapes' in their ontology. |
| 11211 | If a sound conclusion comes from two errors that cancel out, the path of the argument must matter [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: If a designated conclusion follows from the premisses, but the argument involves two howlers which cancel each other out, then the moral is that the path an argument takes from premisses to conclusion does matter to its logical evaluation. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], II) | |
| A reaction: The drift of this is that our view of logic should be a little closer to the reasoning of ordinary language, and we should rely a little less on purely formal accounts. |
| 10225 | Monadic second-order logic might be understood in terms of plural quantifiers [Boolos, by Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Boolos has proposed an alternative understanding of monadic, second-order logic, in terms of plural quantifiers, which many philosophers have found attractive. | |
| From: report of George Boolos (To be is to be the value of a variable.. [1984]) by Stewart Shapiro - Philosophy of Mathematics 3.5 |
| 10736 | Boolos showed how plural quantifiers can interpret monadic second-order logic [Boolos, by Linnebo] |
| Full Idea: In an indisputable technical result, Boolos showed how plural quantifiers can be used to interpret monadic second-order logic. | |
| From: report of George Boolos (To be is to be the value of a variable.. [1984], Intro) by Øystein Linnebo - Plural Quantification Exposed Intro |
| 10780 | Any sentence of monadic second-order logic can be translated into plural first-order logic [Boolos, by Linnebo] |
| Full Idea: Boolos discovered that any sentence of monadic second-order logic can be translated into plural first-order logic. | |
| From: report of George Boolos (To be is to be the value of a variable.. [1984], §1) by Øystein Linnebo - Plural Quantification Exposed p.74 |
| 10697 | Identity is clearly a logical concept, and greatly enhances predicate calculus [Boolos] |
| Full Idea: Indispensable to cross-reference, lacking distinctive content, and pervading thought and discourse, 'identity' is without question a logical concept. Adding it to predicate calculus significantly increases the number and variety of inferences possible. | |
| From: George Boolos (To be is to be the value of a variable.. [1984], p.54) | |
| A reaction: It is not at all clear to me that identity is a logical concept. Is 'existence' a logical concept? It seems to fit all of Boolos's criteria? I say that all he really means is that it is basic to thought, but I'm not sure it drives the reasoning process. |
| 11212 | The sense of a connective comes from primitively obvious rules of inference [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: A connective will possess the sense that it has by virtue of its competent users' finding certain rules of inference involving it to be primitively obvious. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], III) | |
| A reaction: Rumfitt cites Peacocke as endorsing this view, which characterises the logical connectives by their rules of usage rather than by their pure semantic value. |
| 11210 | Standardly 'and' and 'but' are held to have the same sense by having the same truth table [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: If 'and' and 'but' really are alike in sense, in what might that likeness consist? Some philosophers of classical logic will reply that they share a sense by virtue of sharing a truth table. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000]) | |
| A reaction: This is the standard view which Rumfitt sets out to challenge. |
| 13671 | Second-order quantifiers are just like plural quantifiers in ordinary language, with no extra ontology [Boolos, by Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Boolos proposes that second-order quantifiers be regarded as 'plural quantifiers' are in ordinary language, and has developed a semantics along those lines. In this way they introduce no new ontology. | |
| From: report of George Boolos (To be is to be the value of a variable.. [1984]) by Stewart Shapiro - Foundations without Foundationalism 7 n32 | |
| A reaction: This presumably has to treat simple predicates and relations as simply groups of objects, rather than having platonic existence, or something. |
| 10267 | We should understand second-order existential quantifiers as plural quantifiers [Boolos, by Shapiro] |
| Full Idea: Standard second-order existential quantifiers pick out a class or a property, but Boolos suggests that they be understood as a plural quantifier, like 'there are objects' or 'there are people'. | |
| From: report of George Boolos (To be is to be the value of a variable.. [1984]) by Stewart Shapiro - Philosophy of Mathematics 7.4 | |
| A reaction: This idea has potential application to mathematics, and Lewis (1991, 1993) 'invokes it to develop an eliminative structuralism' (Shapiro). |
| 10698 | Plural forms have no more ontological commitment than to first-order objects [Boolos] |
| Full Idea: Abandon the idea that use of plural forms must always be understood to commit one to the existence of sets of those things to which the corresponding singular forms apply. | |
| From: George Boolos (To be is to be the value of a variable.. [1984], p.66) | |
| A reaction: It seems to be an open question whether plural quantification is first- or second-order, but it looks as if it is a rewriting of the first-order. |
| 7806 | Boolos invented plural quantification [Boolos, by Benardete,JA] |
| Full Idea: Boolos virtually patented the new device of plural quantification. | |
| From: report of George Boolos (To be is to be the value of a variable.. [1984]) by José A. Benardete - Logic and Ontology | |
| A reaction: This would be 'there are some things such that...' |
| 17446 | Counting rests on one-one correspondence, of numerals to objects [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Counting rests itself on a one-one correlation, namely of numerals 1 to n and the objects. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894]), quoted by Richard G. Heck - Cardinality, Counting and Equinumerosity 3 | |
| A reaction: Parsons observes that counting will establish a one-one correspondence, but that doesn't make it the aim of counting, and so Frege hasn't answered Husserl properly. Which of the two is conceptually prior? How do you decide. |
| 9582 | Husserl rests sameness of number on one-one correlation, forgetting the correlation with numbers themselves [Frege] |
| Full Idea: When Husserl says that sameness of number can be shown by one-one correlation, he forgets that this counting itself rests on a univocal one-one correlation, namely that between the numerals 1 to n and the objects of the set. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.326) | |
| A reaction: This is the platonist talking. Neo-logicism is attempting to build numbers just from the one-one correlation of objects. |
| 9586 | In a number-statement, something is predicated of a concept [Frege] |
| Full Idea: In a number-statement, something is predicated of a concept. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.328) | |
| A reaction: A succinct statement of Frege's theory of numbers. By my lights that would make numbers at least second-order abstractions. |
| 9580 | Our concepts recognise existing relations, they don't change them [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The bringing of an object under a concept is merely the recognition of a relation which previously already obtained, [but in the abstractionist view] objects are essentially changed by the process, so that objects brought under a concept become similar. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.324) | |
| A reaction: Frege's view would have to account for occasional misapplications of concepts, like taking a dolphin to be a fish, or falsely thinking there is someone in the cellar. |
| 9589 | Numbers are not real like the sea, but (crucially) they are still objective [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The sea is something real and a number is not; but this does not prevent it from being something objective; and that is the important thing. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.337) | |
| A reaction: This seems a qualification of Frege's platonism. It is why people start talking about abstract items which 'subsist', instead of 'exist'. It shows Frege's motivation in all this, which is to secure logic and maths from the vagaries of psychology. |
| 9577 | The naïve view of number is that it is like a heap of things, or maybe a property of a heap [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The most naïve opinion of number is that it is something like a heap in which things are contained. The next most naïve view is the conception of number as the property of a heap, cleansing the objects of their particulars. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.323) | |
| A reaction: A hundred toothbrushes and a hundred sponges can be seen to contain the same number (by one-to-one mapping), without actually knowing what that number is. There is something numerical in the heap, even if the number is absent. |
| 9578 | If objects are just presentation, we get increasing abstraction by ignoring their properties [Frege] |
| Full Idea: If an object is just presentation, we can pay less attention to a property and it disappears. By letting one characteristic after another disappear, we obtain concepts that are increasingly more abstract. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.324) | |
| A reaction: Frege despises this view. Note there is scope in the despised view for degrees or levels of abstraction, defined in terms of number of properties ignored. Part of Frege's criticism is realist. He retains the object, while Husserl imagines it different. |
| 10700 | First- and second-order quantifiers are two ways of referring to the same things [Boolos] |
| Full Idea: Ontological commitment is carried by first-order quantifiers; a second-order quantifier needn't be taken to be a first-order quantifier in disguise, having special items, collections, as its range. They are two ways of referring to the same things. | |
| From: George Boolos (To be is to be the value of a variable.. [1984], p.72) | |
| A reaction: If second-order quantifiers are just a way of referring, then we can see first-order quantifiers that way too, so we could deny 'objects'. |
| 9581 | Many people have the same thought, which is the component, not the private presentation [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The same thought can be grasped by many people. The components of a thought, and even more so the things themselves, must be distinguished from the presentations which in the soul accompany the grasping of a thought. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.325) | |
| A reaction: This is the basic realisation, also found in Russell, of how so much confusion has crept into philosophy, in Berkeley, for example. Frege starts down the road which leads to the externalist view of content. |
| 9579 | Disregarding properties of two cats still leaves different objects, but what is now the difference? [Frege] |
| Full Idea: If from a black cat and a white cat we disregard colour, then posture, then location, ..we finally derive something which is completely without restrictions on content; but what is derived from the objects does differ, although it is not easy to say how. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.324) | |
| A reaction: This is a key objection to abstractionism for Frege - we are counting two cats, not two substrata of essential catness, or whatever. But what makes a cat countable? (Key question!) It isn't its colour, or posture or location. |
| 9587 | How do you find the right level of inattention; you eliminate too many or too few characteristics [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Inattention is a very strong lye which must not be too concentrated, or it dissolves everything (such as the connection between the objects), but must not be too weak, to produce sufficient change. Personally I cannot find the proper dilution. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.330) | |
| A reaction: We may sympathise with the lack of precision here (frustrating for a logician), but it is not difficult to say of a baseball defence 'just concentrate on the relations, and ignore the individuals who implement it'. You retain basic baseball skills. |
| 9588 | Number-abstraction somehow makes things identical without changing them! [Frege] |
| Full Idea: Number-abstraction simply has the wonderful and very fruitful property of making things absolutely the same as one another without altering them. Something like this is possible only in the psychological wash-tub. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.332) | |
| A reaction: Frege can be awfully sarcastic. I don't really see his difficulty. For mathematics we only need to know what is countable about an object - we don't need to know how many hairs there are on the cat, only that it has identity. |
| 9583 | Psychological logicians are concerned with sense of words, but mathematicians study the reference [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The psychological logicians are concerned with the sense of the words and with the presentations, which they do not distinguish from the sense; but the mathematicians are concerned with the matter itself, with the reference of the words. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.326) | |
| A reaction: This is helpful for showing the point of his sense/reference distinction; it is part of his campaign against psychologism, by showing that there is a non-psychological component to language - the reference, where it meets the public world. |
| 9584 | Identity baffles psychologists, since A and B must be presented differently to identify them [Frege] |
| Full Idea: The relation of sameness remains puzzling to a psychological logician. They cannot say 'A is the same as B', because that requires distinguishing A from B, so that these would have to be different presentations. | |
| From: Gottlob Frege (Review of Husserl's 'Phil of Arithmetic' [1894], p.327) | |
| A reaction: This is why Frege needed the concept of reference, so that identity could be outside the mind (as in Hesperus = Phosophorus). Think about an electron; now think about a different electron. |
| 11214 | We learn 'not' along with affirmation, by learning to either affirm or deny a sentence [Rumfitt] |
| Full Idea: The standard view is that affirming not-A is more complex than affirming the atomic sentence A itself, with the latter determining its sense. But we could learn 'not' directly, by learning at once how to either affirm A or reject A. | |
| From: Ian Rumfitt ("Yes" and "No" [2000], IV) | |
| A reaction: [compressed] This seems fairly anti-Fregean in spirit, because it looks at the psychology of how we learn 'not' as a way of clarifying what we mean by it, rather than just looking at its logical behaviour (and thus giving it a secondary role). |