History and Philosophy of Logic 23 (3):197-213 (2002)

Authors
André Fuhrmann
Goethe University Frankfurt
Abstract
In Appendix B of Russell's The Principles of Mathematics occurs a paradox, the paradox of propositions, which a simple theory of types is unable to resolve. This fact is frequently taken to be one of the principal reasons for calling ramification onto the Russellian stage. The paper presents a detaiFled exposition of the paradox and its discussion in the correspondence between Frege and Russell. It is argued that Russell finally adopted a very simple solution to the paradox. This solution had nothing to do with ramified types but marked an important shift in his theory of propositions
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1080/01445340210161017
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,981
External links

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

Logic and Knowledge.BERTRAND RUSSELL - 1957 - Philosophical Quarterly 7 (29):374.
My Philosophical Development.Bertrand Russell - 1959 - London: Allen & Unwin.
Selected Logic Papers.W. V. O. Quine - 1966 - Harvard University Press.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Why Ramify?Harold T. Hodes - 2015 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 56 (2):379-415.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Russell-Myhill Paradox.Kevin C. Klement - 2003 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
On Russell's Vulnerability to Russell's Paradox.James Levine - 2001 - History and Philosophy of Logic 22 (4):207-231.
Russell's Paradox of the Totality of Propositions.Nino B. Cocchiarella - 2000 - Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 5 (1):25-37.
Bradley’s Paradox and Russell’s Theory of Relations.Richard Parker - 1984 - Philosophy Research Archives 10:261-273.
Zermelo and Russell's Paradox: Is There a Universal Set?G. Landini - 2013 - Philosophia Mathematica 21 (2):180-199.
Grelling’s Paradox.Jay Newhard - 2005 - Philosophical Studies 126 (1):1 - 27.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-08-10

Total views
64 ( #159,757 of 2,427,277 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #533,878 of 2,427,277 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes