Philosophical Quarterly 60 (238):126-148 (2010)
|Abstract||Frege held that singular terms can refer only to objects, not to concepts. I argue that the counter-intuitive consequences of this claim ('the concept paradox') arise from Frege's mirroring principle that an incomplete expression can only express an incomplete sense and stand for an incomplete reference. This is not, as is sometimes thought, merely because predicates and singular terms cannot be intersubstituted salva veritate ( congruitate ). The concept paradox, properly understood, poses therefore a different, harder, challenge. An investigation of the foundations of the mirroring principle also sheds light on the role which language plays in Frege's epistemology of logic.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Marco Ruffino (2003). Why Frege Would Not Be a Neo-Fregean. Mind 112 (445):51-78.
Michael Dummett (1976). I. Frege as a Realist. Inquiry 19 (1-4):455-468.
Jesper Kallestrup (2003). Paradoxes About Belief. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (1):107-117.
Joongol Kim (2011). Frege's Context Principle: An Interpretation. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (2):193-213.
Gregory Landini (2006). Frege's Cardinals as Concept-Correlates. Erkenntnis 65 (2):207 - 243.
Michael Nelson (2008). Frege and the Paradox of Analysis. Philosophical Studies 137 (2):159 - 181.
Marco Ruffino (2000). Extensions as Representative Objects in Frege's Logic. Erkenntnis 52 (2):239-252.
Mark Textor (2009). Unsaturatedness: Wittgenstein's Challenge, Frege's Answer. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 109 (1pt1):61-82.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads56 ( #18,247 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,010 of 556,837 )
How can I increase my downloads?