Comments on Mark Kalderon's “The Open Question Argument, Frege's Puzzle, and Leibniz's Law”
| Abstract | A standard strategy for defending a claim of non-identity is one which invokes Leibniz’s Law. (1) Fa (2) ~Fb (3) (∀x)(∀y)(x=y ⊃ (∀P)(Px ⊃ Py)) (4) a=b ⊃ (Fa ⊃ Fb) (5) a≠b In Kalderon’s view, this basic strategy underlies both Moore’s Open Question Argument (OQA) as well as (a variant formulation of) Frege’s puzzle (FP). In the former case, the argument runs from the fact that some natural property—call it “F-ness”—has, but goodness lacks, the (2nd order) property of its being an open question whether everything that instantiates it is good to the conclusion that goodness and F-ness are distinct. And in the latter case, the argument runs from the fact that that Hesperus has, but Phosphorus lacks, the property of being believed by the ancient astronomers to be visible in the evening sky to the conclusion that Hesperus and Phosphorus are distinct. Kalderon argues that both the OQA and FP fail because in neither case is there good reason to believe that both (1) and (2) are true. The reason we are tempted to believe that they are true is because we mistake de dicto claims for de re claims. In order for FP to go through, the truth of the following de re claims needs to be established: FP1) Hesperus was believed by the ancient astronomers to be visible in the evening sky. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesMark Eli Kalderon (2004). Open Questions and the Manifest Image. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (2):251–289.
Matti Eklund (2009). The Frege–Geach Problem and Kalderon's Moral Fictionalism. Philosophical Quarterly 59 (237):705-712.
Rod Bertolet (1994). Conventions and Coreferentiality. Journal of Philosophical Research 19:257-262.
Caj Strandberg (2004). In Defence of the Open Question Argument. Journal of Ethics 8 (2):179-196.
Charles R. Pigden (2011). Identifying Goodness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (1):93 - 109.
M. A. Moffett (2002). A Note on the Relationship Between Mates' Puzzle and Frege's Puzzle. Journal of Semantics 19 (2):159-166.
Jeff Speaks (2011). Frege's Puzzle and Descriptive Enrichment. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (2):267-282.
Dennis Temple (1995). A Big Bang Cosmological Argument? Philosophy in the Contemporary World 2 (2):11-16.
Melinda Hogan (2003). Brute Error Without Sinn: Identity Claims in the Phaedo and in Frege. In Naomi Reshotko (ed.), Desire, Identity, and Existence: Essays in Honor of T.M. Penner.
Andrew Altman (2004). Breathing Life Into a Dead Argument: G.E. Moore and the Open Question. Philosophical Studies 117 (3):395-408.
Richard Heck & Robert May (2011). The Composition of Thoughts. Noûs 45 (1):126-166.
Mark van Roojen (2006). Knowing Enough to Disagree: A New Response to the Moral Twin Earth Argument. In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies In Metaethics, Volume 1.
Ned Markosian (1995). The Open Past. Philosophical Studies 79 (1):95 - 105.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-12-22Total downloads35 ( #34,083 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,181 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
