Pub Date : 2020-06-24DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199278343.003.0001
William Demopoulos
This chapter argues for two principal contentions, both of which mark points of divergence from the neo-Fregean position first developed in Crispin Wright’s monograph Frege’s Conception of Numbers as Objects, and developed further in an extended series of works by Wright and Bob Hale. First, that Frege can be regarded as addressing the apriority of arithmetic in a manner that is independent of the ideas that numbers are logical objects or that arithmetic is analytic or a part of logic. Second, that Frege can secure the objectivity of arithmetic in a way that is independent of the idea that numbers are logical objects.
{"title":"Generality and Objectivity in Frege’s Foundations of Arithmetic","authors":"William Demopoulos","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780199278343.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199278343.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter argues for two principal contentions, both of which mark points of divergence from the neo-Fregean position first developed in Crispin Wright’s monograph Frege’s Conception of Numbers as Objects, and developed further in an extended series of works by Wright and Bob Hale. First, that Frege can be regarded as addressing the apriority of arithmetic in a manner that is independent of the ideas that numbers are logical objects or that arithmetic is analytic or a part of logic. Second, that Frege can secure the objectivity of arithmetic in a way that is independent of the idea that numbers are logical objects.","PeriodicalId":423223,"journal":{"name":"Logic, Language, and Mathematics","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123697195","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-06-24DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199278343.003.0010
B. Hale
This chapter is concerned with Crispin Wright’s critique, in his 2002 “The Conceivability of Naturalism,” of the well-known argument developed in Saul Kripke’s Naming and Necessity against the identity of pain with C-fibre firing. Kripke argued that if the identity held it would do so necessarily, so that the identity theorist would have the task of explaining away the apparent conceivability of pain without C-fibre firing and C-fibre firing without pain. Wright identified a principle underlying Kripke’s argument (the “Counter-Conceivability Principle,” to the effect that a clear and distinct conception of a situation is the best possible evidence of its possibility), and suggested that Kripke’s deployment of it against the identity theory resulted in failure. The present chapter raises some doubts about the details of Wright’s diagnosis of the flaw in Kripke’s argument, and makes a contribution of its own to our understanding of the aetiology of modal illusion.
{"title":"CCCP","authors":"B. Hale","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780199278343.003.0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199278343.003.0010","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter is concerned with Crispin Wright’s critique, in his 2002 “The Conceivability of Naturalism,” of the well-known argument developed in Saul Kripke’s Naming and Necessity against the identity of pain with C-fibre firing. Kripke argued that if the identity held it would do so necessarily, so that the identity theorist would have the task of explaining away the apparent conceivability of pain without C-fibre firing and C-fibre firing without pain. Wright identified a principle underlying Kripke’s argument (the “Counter-Conceivability Principle,” to the effect that a clear and distinct conception of a situation is the best possible evidence of its possibility), and suggested that Kripke’s deployment of it against the identity theory resulted in failure. The present chapter raises some doubts about the details of Wright’s diagnosis of the flaw in Kripke’s argument, and makes a contribution of its own to our understanding of the aetiology of modal illusion.","PeriodicalId":423223,"journal":{"name":"Logic, Language, and Mathematics","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122957224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：