No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Some Reflections on Frege: Philosophy Of Language
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2010
Extract
Frege: Philosophy of Language (Duckworth, London: 1973; xxv, 698) has been heralded as Michael Dummett's long-awaited magnum opus on Frege. Actually, however, as the author himself tells us, it is only the first of a two-volume series devoted to Frege's philosophy of language and his philosophy of mathematics respectively.
The book itself has been long in preparation, the writing of it having been interrupted for several years. This fact could not help but leave some marks on the organization and content of the various chapters. Still, all in all, it presents a remarkably interesting and provocative whole. It is topical, rather than purely genetic in approach, dealing with various fundamental features of Frege's philosophy of language in some 19 chapters; e.g., with his sense-reference distinction, his theory of assertions, his conception of the nature and place of truth-values, propositions and thoughts, his views on quantification and identity, the nature of proper names, his polemic about explicit vs. implicit (contextual) definitions, his theory of incomplete (predicative) expressions, and the like. However, the historical needs of the reader are also well-served.
- Type
- Études Critiques—Critical Notices
- Information
- Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 1977 , pp. 519 - 533
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1977
References
1 P. ix.
2 P. xii.
3 Pp. 212–13, Note.
4 Goltlob Frege: Nachgelassene Schriften und Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel; Hermes, H., Kambartel, F., Kaulbach, F., eds. (Hamburg, 1969). The conversations took place in Constance in May, 1975, where I spent several weeks at the ArchivesGoogle Scholar.
5 Dummett, p. 661.
6 For a partial account of Frege's spiritual ancestry, see Bartlett, J., Funktion u. Gegensland: Eine Untersuchung in d. Logik von Gottlob Frege. Diss. (Munich, 1961);Google ScholarGabriel, G., Definitionen u. Interessen: Über die Praktischen Grundlagen der Definitionslehre. (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1972)Google Scholar; Kreiser, L., Gottlob Frege: Schriften zurLogik (Berlin, 1973), pp. 262–63etpass.Google Scholar; Kluge, E. W., Functions and Things: An Essay in the Metaphysics of Frege and Wittgenstein. Diss. (AnnArbor, 1968) — to mention just a few recent commentatorsGoogle Scholar.
7 Cf. Kreiser, loc. cit.
8 Dummett, pp. 661 ff.
9 Loc. cit.
10 Ibid., p. ix.
11 Ibid., p. xi.
12 Ibid., p. xii.
13 Cf. Ibid., Chapter 18.
14 Ibid., pp. 629–30.
15 Ibid., p. 630.
16 Ibid., pp. 630–42.
17 Ibid., p. 643.
18 Dummett mistakenly dates the introduction of this distinction as in “On Sense and Reference”. Actually, it appeared first in point in “Function and Concept” a year earlier (1891) and in unpublished form in a letter to Husserl in the same year.
19 Ibid., p. 644.
20 Ibid., p. 645.
21 Ibid., pp. 645–55. For a more sympathetic discussion of Frege's position, see Gabriel, loc. cit.; Kambartel, F., “Formules u. Inhaltliches Sprechen” in Gadamer, H., Das Problem d. Sprache (Munich, 1967), pp. 293–312;Google ScholarKluge, E. W., Gottlob Frege on the Foundations of Geometry and Formal Theories of Arithmetic (New Haven and London, 1971) introductionGoogle Scholar.
22 Ibid., p. 657.
23 Ibid., p. 659.
24 Ibid., loc. cit.
25 Ibid., p. 622.
26 Ibid., p. 664.
27 Ibid., p. 643.
28 “Kurze Übersicht meiner logischen Lehren” and “Einleitung in die Logik” Nachgelassene Schriften, pp. 213–18 and pp. 201–12 respectively.
29 “Logik i.d. Mathemathik”, Nachgelassene Schriften, pp. 219–70.
30 Dummett, pp. 644–45.
31 E.g., Ibid., pp. 628–29, 645–55, etc.
32 Angelelli, I., ed., Gottlob Frege: Kleine Schriften (Hildesheim, 1967), p. 381Google Scholar.
33 Nachgelassene Schriften, pp. 206–07.
34 Ibid., pp. 249–50,253.
35 Letter to Hugo Dingler, 6. II. 1917; letter to Hilbert, 27. XII. 1899; etc.
36 Incidentally, as late as 1914 Frege maintained a similar thesis with respect to the references of certain types of expressions; and in 1897–98 he stated an analogous view concerning words of ordinary language. Cf. Nachgelassene Schrifíen, pp. 253 and 168 respectively.
37 Actualités Scientifique et Induslrielles, No. 395 (Paris, 1936), p. 29Google Scholar.
38 Dummett, p. 659.
39 Nachgelassene Schriften, pp. 155–56.
40 Cf. The Foundations of Arilhmetic (trans. Austen, J. L.; Oxford, 1959). pp. 35 and 37 note*Google Scholar.
41 Grundgesetze d. Arithmetik(Jena, 1893), pp. xii ff., xxiv, et. passGoogle Scholar.
42 Cf.Angelelli, , pp. 181–82; English translation E. W. Kluge, Mind, Vol. Lxxx1 NS 323, pp. 321–37Google Scholar.
43 Dummett, p. 659.
44 Cf. Kluge, Funcíions and Things, Part II.
45 Loc. cit., pp. 16, 78, 81, 87, 93, 100–01, 116, etc.
46 For the historical accuracy of this, see note 18 above., Dummett, p. 4; see also p. 194.
48 Loc. cit.
49 Loc. cit.
50 Loc. cit.
51 Cf. Nachgelassene Schríften, p. 261.
52 Dummett, p. 237; cf. pp. 238 ff.
53 Ibid., p. 89; see also pp. 91, 152, etc.
54 Ibid., p. 102; see also pp. 103, 105 etc.
55 Ibid., p. 415.
56 This, clearly, is at least part of the import of Note 2 of “On Sense and Reference” (Angelelli, p. 144).
57 Cf. e.g., “The Thought”, pp. 69 ff. (Angelelli, pp. 353–54).
58 In this context, Frege's theory of definitions, in particular as expressed in the series “On the Foundations of Geometry” (Jahresbericht d. Deulschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung (Stuttgart, 1903) vol. 12, pp. 319–24 and 368–75; vol. 15, (1906), pp. 293–309, 377–403, 423–30 (Angelelli, pp. 262–72 and 281–323; for an English translation, see Kluge, pp. 22–112); “On Formal Theories of Arithmetic”,Google ScholarSitzungsberichte d. jenaischen Gesellschft. f. Med. u, Naturwisschft.19 (1885) supl. 2, pp. 94–104 (Angelelli, pp. 103–11; for an English translation, see Kluge, pp. 141–53), as well as Logik i.d. MathematikGoogle Scholar.
59 Dummett, p. 156.
60 Ibid., p. 156.
61 Loc. cit.
62 Ibid., p. 157.
63 P. 69, note 1 (Angelelli, p. 354, note 5).
64 Cf. Kluge, pp. xiii–xiv.
65 Cf. Nachgelassene Schriften, p. 262. Ideally, they should have only one sense. See below.
66 Cf. “Foundations”, 1906, I, pp. 301 ff. (Kluge, pp. 57–62).
67 Cf. Loc. cit.
68 Cf. Ibid., p. 303 (Kluge, p. 61); Nachgelassene Schriften, pp. 227 ff., etc.
69 Nachgelassene Schriften, loc. cit.
70 Loc. cit.
71 For the sake of expository convenience, I here ignore Frege's claim that strictly speaking, identity is not a relation between senses but objects only; that it is an analogous relation that holds between senses.
72 Cf. Ibid., pp. 227 et pass.
73 Loc. cit.
74 Cf. letter to Husserl, 30.X. to 1.X1.1906.
75 Dummett, p. 588.
76 Ibid., p. 239.
77 In this context, see Angelelli, pp. 143–44; “The Thought”, pp. 65–66 (Angelelli, p. 350); Logik, i.d. Mathematik (Nachgelassene Schriften, pp. 164–70); letters to Husserl (30.X to 1.XI.1906; 9.X1.1906);letter to Jourdain (item XXI/12 of Briefwechsel) etcGoogle Scholar.
78 Angelelli, p. 350.
79 Angelelli, pp. 143 ff.; letter to Jourdain, etc.
80 Cf. Angelelli, p. 144, etc.
81 Cf. Nachgelassene Schriften, pp. 168; Angelelli, pp. 289–95, etcGoogle Scholar.
82 Dummett, p. 161.
83 Ibid., pp. 369, 442, etc.
84 Cf. Angelelli, pp. 287 ff.
85 Dummett, p. 83.
86 Ibid., pp. 645–66.
87 Ibid., pp. 211ff.
88 Ibid., Chapter 13.
89 Ibid., pp. 186ff.
90 Ibid., pp. 177ff.