Why frege thought it to be “probable” that truth is indefinable

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Stepanians, Markus
Data de Publicação: 2016
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Manuscrito (Online)
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644397
Resumo: Frege’s so-called “Regress Argument” is closely examined and it is argued that Dummett’s reconstruction of it is not satisfactory. Contra Dummett, the argument does not involve a regress, is not a reductio and not even a strictly deductive argument. Rather, what Frege tries to show is that any attempt to define truth fails to be epistemically fruitful and thus misses the very point of analytic definitions of concepts. The cause of this epistemic sterility is an inherent circularity, and it is in view of this defect that Frege suggests that truth is very likely so simple that it cannot be defined at all. This circularity, in turn, is due to the fact that Frege takes the sense of “true” to be a constitutive part of the content of acts of thinking a complete thought. Finally, I trace Frege‘s belief in this omnipresence of the sense of the word “true” in thought to his conception of judgment and suggest that it may very well be false.
id UNICAMP-17_b15eb31280a2b4fdbb401732b4591947
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8644397
network_acronym_str UNICAMP-17
network_name_str Manuscrito (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Why frege thought it to be “probable” that truth is indefinableFrege. Truth. Thought. JudgmentFrege’s so-called “Regress Argument” is closely examined and it is argued that Dummett’s reconstruction of it is not satisfactory. Contra Dummett, the argument does not involve a regress, is not a reductio and not even a strictly deductive argument. Rather, what Frege tries to show is that any attempt to define truth fails to be epistemically fruitful and thus misses the very point of analytic definitions of concepts. The cause of this epistemic sterility is an inherent circularity, and it is in view of this defect that Frege suggests that truth is very likely so simple that it cannot be defined at all. This circularity, in turn, is due to the fact that Frege takes the sense of “true” to be a constitutive part of the content of acts of thinking a complete thought. Finally, I trace Frege‘s belief in this omnipresence of the sense of the word “true” in thought to his conception of judgment and suggest that it may very well be false.Universidade Estadual de Campinas2016-03-21info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644397Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 26 n. 2 (2003): Jul./Dez.; 331-345Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 26 No. 2 (2003): Jul./Dez.; 331-345Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 26 Núm. 2 (2003): Jul./Dez.; 331-3452317-630Xreponame:Manuscrito (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:UNICAMPporhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644397/11821Copyright (c) 2003 Manuscritoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessStepanians, Markus2016-03-21T10:43:56Zoai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8644397Revistahttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscritoPUBhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/oaimwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br2317-630X0100-6045opendoar:2016-03-21T10:43:56Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Why frege thought it to be “probable” that truth is indefinable
title Why frege thought it to be “probable” that truth is indefinable
spellingShingle Why frege thought it to be “probable” that truth is indefinable
Stepanians, Markus
Frege. Truth. Thought. Judgment
title_short Why frege thought it to be “probable” that truth is indefinable
title_full Why frege thought it to be “probable” that truth is indefinable
title_fullStr Why frege thought it to be “probable” that truth is indefinable
title_full_unstemmed Why frege thought it to be “probable” that truth is indefinable
title_sort Why frege thought it to be “probable” that truth is indefinable
author Stepanians, Markus
author_facet Stepanians, Markus
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Stepanians, Markus
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Frege. Truth. Thought. Judgment
topic Frege. Truth. Thought. Judgment
description Frege’s so-called “Regress Argument” is closely examined and it is argued that Dummett’s reconstruction of it is not satisfactory. Contra Dummett, the argument does not involve a regress, is not a reductio and not even a strictly deductive argument. Rather, what Frege tries to show is that any attempt to define truth fails to be epistemically fruitful and thus misses the very point of analytic definitions of concepts. The cause of this epistemic sterility is an inherent circularity, and it is in view of this defect that Frege suggests that truth is very likely so simple that it cannot be defined at all. This circularity, in turn, is due to the fact that Frege takes the sense of “true” to be a constitutive part of the content of acts of thinking a complete thought. Finally, I trace Frege‘s belief in this omnipresence of the sense of the word “true” in thought to his conception of judgment and suggest that it may very well be false.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-03-21
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644397
url https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644397
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644397/11821
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2003 Manuscrito
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2003 Manuscrito
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Campinas
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Campinas
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 26 n. 2 (2003): Jul./Dez.; 331-345
Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 26 No. 2 (2003): Jul./Dez.; 331-345
Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 26 Núm. 2 (2003): Jul./Dez.; 331-345
2317-630X
reponame:Manuscrito (Online)
instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron:UNICAMP
instname_str Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron_str UNICAMP
institution UNICAMP
reponame_str Manuscrito (Online)
collection Manuscrito (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br
_version_ 1800216566185328640