David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Russell 32 (127):159 (2012)
Most advocates of the so-called “neologicist” movement in the philosophy of mathematics identify themselves as “Neo-Fregeans” (e.g., Hale and Wright): presenting an updated and revised version of Frege’s form of logicism. Russell’s form of logicism is scarcely discussed in this literature, and when it is, often dismissed as not really logicism at all (in lights of its assumption of axioms of infinity, reducibiity and so on). In this paper I have three aims: firstly, to identify more clearly the primary metaontological and methodological differences between Russell’s logicism and the more recent forms; secondly, to argue that Russell’s form of logicism offers more elegant and satisfactory solutions to a variety of problems that continue to plague the neo-logicist movement (the bad company objection, the embarassment of richness objection, worries about a bloated ontology, etc.); thirdly, to argue that Neo- Russellian forms of neologicism remain viable positions for current philosophers of mathematics
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Kevin C. Klement (forthcoming). A Generic Russellian Elimination of Abstract Objects. Philosophia Mathematica:nkv031.
Anders Kraal (2013). The Aim of Russell's Early Logicism: A Reinterpretation. Synthese 191 (7):1-18.
Gennady Shtakser & Leonid Leonenko (2011). Tracks of Relations and Equivalences-Based Reasoning. Studia Logica 97 (3):385-413.
Similar books and articles
Ian Proops (2006). Russell’s Reasons for Logicism. Journal of the History of Philosophy 44 (2):267-292.
Philip A. Ebert & Marcus Rossberg (2009). Ed Zalta's Version of Neo-Logicism: A Friendly Letter of Complaint. In Hannes Leitgeb & Alexander Hieke (eds.), Reduction – Abstraction – Analysis. Ontos 11--305.
Marcus Rossberg & Philip A. Ebert (2007). What is the Purpose of Neo-Logicism? Traveaux de Logique 18:33-61.
Timothy Bays (2000). The Fruits of Logicism. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 41 (4):415-421.
Bird Alexander (1997). The Logic in Logicism. Dialogue 36.
I. Grattan-Guinness (1984). Notes on the Fate of Logicism Fromprincipia Mathematicato Gödel's Incompletability Theorem. History and Philosophy of Logic 5 (1):67-78.
Bernard Linsky & Edward N. Zalta (2006). What is Neologicism? Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 12 (1):60-99.
Sanford Shieh (2008). Frege on Definitions. Philosophy Compass 3 (5):992-1012.
Otavio Bueno (2001). Logicism Revisited. Principia 5 (1-2):99-124.
Fraser MacBride (2003). Speaking with Shadows: A Study of Neo-Logicism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54 (1):103-163.
Richard Jeffrey (2002). Logicism Lite. Philosophy of Science 69 (3):474-496.
Added to index2012-09-09
Total downloads31 ( #153,481 of 1,926,184 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #269,835 of 1,926,184 )
How can I increase my downloads?