Synthese

, Volume 170, Issue 3, pp 443–456 | Cite as

Double vision: two questions about the neo-Fregean program

Article

Abstract

Much of The Reason’s Proper Study is devoted to defending the claim that simply by stipulating an abstraction principle for the “number-of” functor, we can simultaneously fix a meaning for this functor and acquire epistemic entitlement to the stipulated principle. In this paper, I argue that the semantic and epistemological principles Hale and Wright offer in defense of this claim may be too strong for their purposes. For if these principles are correct, it is hard to see why they do not justify platonist strategies that are not in any way “neo-Fregean,” e.g. strategies that treat “the number of Fs” as a Russellian definite description rather than a singular term, or employ axioms that do not have the form of abstraction principles.

Keywords

Neo-Fregean Neologicism Hume’s principle Implicit definition Singular term 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boolos G. (1987). The consistency of Frege’s Foundations of arithmetic. In: Thomson J.J. (eds) On being and saying: Essays in honor of Richard Cartwright. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 3–20Google Scholar
  2. Chierchia G., McConnell-Ginet S. (1996). Meaning and grammar. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 425–430.Google Scholar
  3. Frege G. (1964). The basic laws of arithmetic, trans. Montgomery Furth. Berkeley, University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Hale B. (2001). A response to Potter and Smiley. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 101, 339–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hale B., Wright C. (2001). The reason’s proper study. Oxford, Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Heck R. (1997). Finitude and Hume’s principles. Journal of Philosophical Logic 26, 589–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heck, R. (2000). Cardinality, counting, and equinumerosity. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 41.Google Scholar
  8. King J. (2001). Complex demonstratives: A quantificational account. Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 10–11Google Scholar
  9. Kripke S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Linnebo Ø. (2004). Frege’s proof of referentiality. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 45, 73–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Neale S. (1990). Descriptions. Cambridge, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Neale S. (2001). Facing facts. Oxford, Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Potter M., Smiley T. (2001). Abstraction by recarving. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 101, 327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Quine W.V. (1969). Ontological relativity and other essays. New York, Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Shapiro S., Weir A. (2000). ‘Neo-Logicist’ logic is not epistemically innocent. Philosophia Mathematica 3, 160–189Google Scholar
  16. Wright C. (1983). Frege’s Conception of numbers as objects. Aberdeen, Aberdeen University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations