Schlick glaubt, daß 'S ist analytisch' gleichermaßen erläutert werden kann durch die Bestimmungen (1) 'S ist tautologisch', (2) 'S ist formal wahr' und (3) 'S wüd von jedem sogleich als wahr anerkannt, der S versteht'. Gemessen an Schlicks eigenen Intentionen scheitert jeder dieser Erläuterungsversuche. Aber vielleicht kann Bestimmung (3), deren Vorgeschichte bei Thomas, Locke und Frege skizziert wird, als Basis für eine Verteidigung der Distinktion analytisch/synthetisch dienen. Eine Explikation des Begriffs 'trivialanalytisch' (t-a) wird vorgeschlagen, welche die folgende These plausibel machen (...) soll: S ist analytisch genau dann, wenn S t-a ist oder aus t-a Sätzen in t-a Schritten bewiesen werden kann. (shrink)
In his paper on ‘Frege's Theory of Sense and Reference’ Saul Kripke remarks: “Like the present account, Künne stresses that for Frege times, persons, etc. can be part of the expression of the thought. However, his reading is certainly not mine in significant respects . . .”. On both counts, he is right. As regards the differences between our readings, in some respects I shall confess to having made a mistake, in several others I shall remain stubbornly unmoved. Thus I (...) shall insist on the need for distinguishing Fregean sense from linguistic (lexico-grammatical) meaning, I shall resist Kripke's function-theoretic account of ‘hybrid’ thought-expressions, and I shall deplore his transformation of Gottlob Frege into Gottrand Fressell. As regards this transformation, I shall argue that some of the main points Kripke wants to drive home do not depend on it. (shrink)
The founder of modern logic and grandfather of analytic philosophy was 70 years old when he published his paper 'Der Gedanke' (The Thought ) in 1918. This essay contains some of Gottlob Frege's deepest and most provocative reflections on the concept of truth, and it will play a prominent role in my lectures. The plan for my lectures is as follows. What is it that is (primarily) true or false? 'Thoughts', is Frege's answer. In §1, I shall explain and defend (...) this answer. In §2, I shall briefly consider his enthymematic argument for the conclusion that the word 'true' resists any attempt at defining it. In §3, I shall discuss his thesis that the thought that things are thus and so is identical with the thought that it is true that things are thus and so. The reasons we are offered for this thesis will be found wanting. In §4, I shall comment extensively on Frege's claim that, in a non-formal language like the one I am currently trying to speak, we can say whatever we want to say without ever using the word 'true' or any of its synonyms. I will reject the propositional-redundancy claim, endorse the assertive-redundancy claim and deny the connection Frege ascribes to them. In his classic 1892 paper 'Über Sinn und Bedeutung' (On Sense and Signification) Frege argues that truth-values are objects. In §5, I shall scrutinize his argument. In §6, I will show that in Frege's ideography (Begriffsschrift) truth, far from being redundant, is omnipresent. The final §7 is again on truth-bearers, this time as a topic in the theory of intentionality and in metaphysics. In the course of discussing Frege's views on the objecthood, the objectivity of thoughts and the timelessness of truth(s), I will plead for a somewhat mitigated Platonism. (shrink)
Truth is a stable, epistemically unconstrained property of propositions, and the concept of truth admits of a non-reductive explanation: that, in a nutshell, is the view for which I argued in Conceptions of Truth. In this paper I try to explain that explanation in a more detailed and, hopefully, more perspicuous way than I did in Ch. 6.2 of the book and to defend its use of sentential quantification against some of the criticisms it has has come in for.
Truth is one of the most debated topics in philosophy; Wolfgang Kunne presents a comprehensive critical examination of all major theories, from Aristotle to the present day. He argues that it is possible to give a satisfactory 'modest' account of truth without invoking problematic notions like correspondence, fact, or meaning. The clarity of exposition and the wealth of examples will make Conceptions of Truth an invaluable and stimulating guide for advanced students and scholars.
Bolzano's Sätze an sich and Frege's Gedanken are obviously close relatives. The paper underlines both similarities and dissimilarities between the psychological and semantical roles assigned to structured truth-evaluable contents in Bolzano's and Frege's theories. In particular, their different accounts of propositional identity are compared, and it is argued that Dummett's recent criticism of Frege's account is grist to Bolzano's mill.
The first half of the paper reflects on a couple of folk-psychological notions. "Belief and "judgement" are selected for special attention. They cover two varieties of thinking, a mental state and a mental act. Both lay claim to truth, and thereby stand in marked contrast to their nowadays sadly neglected non-committal counterparts. Meinong, of course, did not neglect them, and his notions of "Annehmen (merely entertaining a thought)" and "Denken (entertaining a thought)" play a decisive role in the paper. - (...) The Lingua Mentis Hypothesis is a bold contribution to cognitive subpersonal psychology. The second half of the paper tries to show that careful reflection on the conceptuäl resources of folk psychology makes certain arguments for this Hypothesis as well as certain philosophical arguments against it look rather feeble. The paper culminates in a discussion of Jerry Fodor's Systematicity Argument for the Language of Thought Hypothesis. In this discussion critical use is made of certain Meinongian insights. (shrink)
Goodman and Elgin want truth to be demoted and rightness to be promoted. In the first part of this paper the main reasons they offer for this reorientation are discussed. Goodman once suggestedthat one construe truth as acceptability that is not subsequently lost, but later he quietly dropped this proposal. In the second part of this paper it is argued that ultimate acceptability is indeed neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for truth.
Zunächst wird Davidsons Frage nach der logischen Form der Handlungs- und Ereignissätze vor dem Hintergrund einer strikten Unterscheidung von Fomibestimmung und Begriffsanalyse herausgearbeitet und seine Antwort von irreführenden Elementen gereinigt. Dann wird die Reichweite dieser Antwort ausgelotet: Sie wird angewendet auf das Problem der Impersonalien und auf das analoge Problem der Ad-Adjektive projeziert. Schließlich wird mit Hilfe der Begriffe der Hinsichtsrelativität und der satzintemen Deixis ein Vorschlag zu einer einheitlichen Lösung der Probleme vorgebracht, die Davidson in diesem Zusammenhang für ungelöst (...) erklärt: Die Frage nach der logischen Form solcher Sätze, die Adverbien wie „langsam" und „absichtlich" oder Adjektive wie „gut" enthalten. (shrink)
Wodurch wird der Sinn des Prädikats in einer Äußerung des indexikalischen Satzes 'Ich habe Blutgruppe A' zu dem propositionalen Gehalt vervollständigt, den der Sprecher ausdrückt? Durch einen Individualbegriff (unter den der Sprecher fällt)? Durch ein Individuum (den Sprecher in propria persona)! Keiner dieser Lösungsvorschläge für das (von Perry zuerst formulierte) Vervollständigungsproblem ist überzeugend. Für Frege ist der in einer solchen Äußerung verwendete Eigenname hybrid: er besteht aus einem Vorkommnis von 'ich' und den Umständen seiner Äußerung. Der Indikator 'ich' allein ist (...) kein Fregescher Eigenname, sondern ein namenbildender Funktor. Seine semantische Rolle ähnelt der von "token-quotes". (shrink)
