|Abstract||Contemporary semantical discussions make mention of the traditional approach to semantics represented by Frege and/or Russell--even sometimes by Frege-Russell. Is there a Frege-Russell view in the philosophy of language? How much of a common semantical perspective did Frege and Russell share? The matter bears exploration. I begin with Frege and Russell on propositions.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Gideon Makin (2000). The Metaphysicians of Meaning: Russell and Frege on Sense and Denotation. Routledge.
Ian Proops (2002). The Tractatus on Inference and Entailment. In Erich Reck (ed.), From Frege to Wittgenstein: Essays on Early Analytic Philosophy, 283–307. Oxford University Press.
Kevin C. Klement (2009). A Cantorian Argument Against Frege's and Early Russell's Theories of Descriptions. In Nicholas Griffin & Dale Jacquette (eds.), Russell Vs. Meinong: The Legacy of "on Denoting". Routledge.
Kevin C. Klement (2001). Russell's Paradox in Appendix B of the Principles of Mathematics : Was Frege's Response Adequate? History and Philosophy of Logic 22 (1):13-28.
Kevin C. Klement (2004). Putting Form Before Function: Logical Grammar in Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein. Philosophers' Imprint 4 (2):1-47.
R. K. Perkins (1982). Russell, Frege, and the "Meaning" of the Theory of Descriptions (Or): Did Russell Know His Frege? Journal of the History of Philosophy 20 (4):407-423.
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.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?