Syntax in Basic Laws §§29–32
Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51 (2):253-277 (2010)
| Abstract | In order to accommodate his view that quantifiers are predicates of predicates within a type theory, Frege introduces a rule which allows a function name to be formed by removing a saturated name from another saturated name which contains it. This rule requires that each name has a rather rich syntactic structure, since one must be able to recognize the occurrences of a name in a larger name. However, I argue that Frege is unable to account for this syntactic structure. I argue that this problem undermines the inductive portion of Frege's proof that all of the names of his system denote in §§29–32 of The Basic Laws | |||||||||
| 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: 5,664 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesIvan Welty (2011). Frege on Indirect Proof. History and Philosophy of Logic 32 (3):283-290.
Tyler Burge (1998). Frege on Knowing the Foundation. Mind 107 (426):305-347.
Dirk Greimann (2008). Does Frege Use a Truth-Predicate in His ‘Justification’ of the Laws of Logic? A Comment on Weiner. Mind 117 (466):403-425.
Mark Textor (2009). Unsaturatedness: Wittgenstein's Challenge, Frege's Answer. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 109 (1pt1):61-82.
Joan Weiner (2005). Semantic Descent. Mind 114 (454):321-354.
Joan Weiner (2008). How Tarskian is Frege? Mind 117 (466):427-450.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-08-13Total downloads15 ( #78,584 of 549,010 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,010 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
