Graduate studies at Western
Review of Symbolic Logic 3 (4):633-664 (2010)
|Abstract||§1. Introduction. Although Whitehead and Russell’s Principia Mathematica (hereafter, PM ), published almost precisely a century ago, is widely heralded as a watershed moment in the history of mathematical logic, in many ways it is still not well understood. Complaints abound to the effect that the presentation is imprecise and obscure, especially with regard to the precise details of the ramified theory of types, and the philosophical explanation and motivation underlying it, all of which was primarily Russell’s responsibility. This has had a large negative impact in particular on the assessment of the socalled “no class” theory of classes endorsed in PM. According to that theory, apparent reference to classes is to be eliminated, contextually, by means of higher-order “propositional function”—variables and quantifiers. This could only be seen as a move in the right direction if “propositional functions,” and/or higher-order quantification generally, were less metaphysically problematic or obscure than classes themselves. But this is not the case—or so goes the usual criticism. Years ago, Geach (1972, p. 272) called Russell’s notion of a propositional function “hopelessly confused and inconsistent.” Cartwright (2005, p. 915) has recently agreed, adding “attempts to say what exactly a Russellian propositional function is, or is supposed to be, are bound to end in frustration.” Soames (2008) claims that “propositional functions . . . are more taken for granted by Russell than seriously investigated” (p. 217), and uses the obscurity surrounding them as partial justification for ignoring the no class theory in a popular treatment of Russell’s work (Soames, 2003).1 A large part of the usual critique involves charging Russell with confusion, or at least obscurity, with regard to what a propositional function is supposed to be. Often the worry has to do with the use/mention distinction: is a propositional function, or even a proposition|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
M. Randall Holmes, Polymorphic Type Checking for the Type Theory of the Principia Mathematica of Russell and Whitehead.
George Bealer (1989). On the Identification of Properties and Propositional Functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 12 (1):1 - 14.
Michael Kremer (2008). Soames on Russell's Logic: A Reply. Philosophical Studies 139 (2):209 - 212.
Scott Soames (2008). No Class: Russell on Contextual Definition and the Elimination of Sets. Philosophical Studies 139 (2):213 - 218.
Brice Halimi (2011). The Versatility of Universality inPrincipia Mathematica. History and Philosophy of Logic 32 (3):241-264.
Kevin C. Klement (2003). Russell's 1903 - 1905 Anticipation of the Lambda Calculus. History and Philosophy of Logic 24 (1):15-37.
Kevin C. Klement (2004). Putting Form Before Function: Logical Grammar in Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein. Philosophers' Imprint 4 (2):1-47.
Richard L. Cartwright (2005). Remarks on Propositional Functions. Mind 114 (456):915-927.
Added to index2009-07-13
Total downloads20 ( #68,544 of 757,560 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #38,592 of 757,560 )
How can I increase my downloads?