David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Quarterly 52 (207):195-216 (2002)
Michael Dummett has long argued that Frege is committed to recognizing a distinction between two sorts of analysis of propositional contents: 'analysis', which reveals the entities that one must grasp in order to apprehend a given propositional content; and 'decomposition', which is used in recognizing the validity of certain inferences. Whereas any propositional content admits of a unique ultimate 'analysis' into simple constituents, it also admits of distinct 'decompositions', no one of which is ultimately privileged over the others. I argue that although Russell accepts this distinction between analysis and decomposition, Frege does not. In particular, I consider claims which Dummett makes regarding how 'analysis' and 'decomposition' are related to two different models Frege at least suggests in discussing the composition of thoughts, the part/whole model and the function/argument model; and I argue that in each case, while Russell accepts views which Dummett attributes to Frege, Frege does not
|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
Robert B. Brandom (1986). Frege's Technical Concepts: Some Recent Developments. In L. Haaparanta & J. Hintikka (eds.), Frege Synthesized. D. Reidel Publishing Co.. 253--295.
J. Alberto Coffa (1981). Russell and Kant. Synthese 46 (2):247 - 263.
Gregory Currie (1982). Frege, Sense and Mathematical Knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60 (1):5 – 19.
Gregory Currie (1985). The Analysis of Thoughts. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63 (3):283 – 298.
Citations of this work BETA
Richard Heck & Robert May (2011). The Composition of Thoughts. Noûs 45 (1):126-166.
James Levine (2006). Analysis, Abstraction Principles, and Slingshot Arguments. Ratio 19 (1):43–63.
Similar books and articles
Anders Johan Schoubye (2013). Ghosts, Murderers, and the Semantics of Descriptions. Noûs 47 (3):496-533.
Howard Wettstein (1990). Frege‐Russell Semantics? Dialectica 44 (1‐2):113-135.
Richard L. Mendelsohn (2005). The Philosophy of Gottlob Frege. Cambridge University Press.
Michael Nelson (2008). Frege and the Paradox of Analysis. Philosophical Studies 137 (2):159 - 181.
Graham Stevens (2003). The Truth and Nothing but the Truth, yet Never the Whole Truth: Frege, Russell and the Analysis of Unities. History and Philosophy of Logic 24 (3):221-240.
Pieranna Garavaso (1991). Frege and the Analysis of Thoughts. History and Philosophy of Logic 12 (2):195-210.
Kevin C. Klement (2004). Putting Form Before Function: Logical Grammar in Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein. Philosophers' Imprint 4 (2):1-47.
Gregory Currie (1983). I. Interpreting Frege: A Reply to Michael Dummett. Inquiry 26 (3):345 – 359.
Gregory Landini (1996). Decomposition and Analysis in Frege'sgrundgesetze. History and Philosophy of Logic 17 (1-2):121-139.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads38 ( #52,973 of 1,410,023 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #32,745 of 1,410,023 )
How can I increase my downloads?