[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 170 KB, 1074x1600, Gottlob-Frege.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16613678 No.16613678 [Reply] [Original]

>A third realm must be recognized. Anything belonging to this realm has it in common with ideas that it cannot be perceived by the senses, but has it in common with things that it does not need an owner so as to belong to the contents of his consciousness. Thus for example the thought we have expressed in the Pythagorean theorem is timelessly true, true independently of whether anyone takes it to be true. It needs no owner. It is not true only from the time when it is discovered; just as a planet, even before anyone saw it, was in interaction with other planets.

So Frege is basically a Platonist?

>> No.16613710

Ya I highly suggest not shooting up heroin and meth for consecutive days

>> No.16613725

His position has always been that of mathematical realism, I don't understand why you're surprised by this. His whole schtick against Hilbert's formalism is that it's not the symbol that matters, but the meaning (Bedeutung).

>> No.16613755

>>16613725
It's not just mathematics though, Frege is extending it to all propositions and constituents of propositions. I'm new to analytic philosophy, but I don't see much difference between Frege's "senses" and Platonic forms.

>> No.16613771
File: 8 KB, 261x193, aristotle-bitch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16613771

>>16613678

Indeed.

>> No.16613794

>>16613755
There's not much difference on the level of reference, but there's a difference on the level of sense.

>> No.16614386
File: 240 KB, 278x430, armor.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16614386

>>16613755

Frege's "senses" are much motivated by examples. The famous one is the astronomical discovery that Hesperus was Phosphorus. If you try to explain the "discovery" in a purely referential view, you'll fail, because your analysis will have to be that "<object-X> is <object-X>" which is just an undeniable truth of logic, and so not a discovery of any kind. So to explain what could be the "discovery" expressed by "Hesperus is Phosphorus" could be, there has to be more to the terms than just their reference, so that "extra" bit is called the "sense."
Saying more about what "sense" is has been a big topic since Frege, and not everyone likes them because they do have a kind of abstract quality ala Platonic forms, but Platonic forms are meant to motivate a different theoretical issue (how different "things" can also be "the same").

>> No.16614394

>>16614386

Also, it's a good time to recommend Kripke's Naming and Necessity.

>> No.16614446

>>16613755
Frege's epistemology is fucking murky, even to himself. Maybe especially to himself, which is why he could be such a curmudgeon to people with different metaphysical assumptions and not perceive that their misunderstanding of his ideas couldn't be fixed by further whacking them over the head. Hell of a rabbit hole to jump down if you're new to the subject.

Even worse, analytics are just as murky about their own AND about Frege's metaphysics/epistemology when they recommend him to you. They will repeatedly insist you go read his famous essays, while refusing themselves to give an account of his basic positions or their consequences. They are just trying to rush you ahead to the part where you take Frege as an authority irrespective of what he believed. What matters is that he's an authority. Logic good. Stop asking questions.

Even by asking what his metaphysical framework is with a thread like this you're already making analytics intuitively uncomfortable. LOGIC GOOD.

>> No.16614476

>>16613678
>Anything belonging to this realm has it in common with ideas that it cannot be perceived by the senses
intellect is a sense, dwt cretin

>> No.16614488

>>16614476
>intellect is a sense, dwt cretin

Derp

>> No.16614715

>>16614386
Yeah I did read his astronomical example, but couldn't a very similar argument be provided in terms of platonic forms? For example, the object that is being referenced partakes in this and that form etc. I haven't read Plato's dialogues on language, but I imagine a platonist would take a very similar stance concerning language.
>>16614394
Thanks, Kripke is on my reading list. Any recommendations for Carnap and Quine? I'm thinking of reading "Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology" and "Two Dogmas..." and skipping the rest. Would those two suffice for now?
>>16614446
Lol yeah, this seems to be a problem widespread among analytics. I was just recently reading Ayer and it was bordering on ridiculous how much he was unaware of his unjustified assumptions.

>> No.16614799

>>16614715
There's a Carnapfag anon who goes ham on Carnap once in a while and he seems cool
>>/lit/thread/S16115885

I also found this extremely helpful if I am recalling the correct article.. I read it a long time ago. IIRC it backs up what carnapbro is saying as well.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/184260

Remember also to read the entertaining reviews of Kripke by Rorty, "Kripke versus Kant" and "How Many Grains Make a Heap." Hate Kripke.

>> No.16614829

>>16613678
>a third realm
YEAH, it’s called MY ASS

>> No.16614858

>>16614829
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sILxBNXazPw

>> No.16614907

>>16614799
I'm not sure if I want to spend that much time on logical positivism, but yeah, anon somehow makes Carnap cool lol

>> No.16614968

>>16613678
Imagine believing this. all objects are utterly dependent on the subject