09.11.2012 Views

Dummett's Backward Road to Frege and to Intuitionism - Tripod

Dummett's Backward Road to Frege and to Intuitionism - Tripod

Dummett's Backward Road to Frege and to Intuitionism - Tripod

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

that even appears <strong>to</strong> resemble Dummett’s program is the option—I say again, option—of defining<br />

“F( )” extensionally. But even this would be impossible unless the senses of the object-names were<br />

explicated first.<br />

How could a language come in<strong>to</strong> being at all? Could it be by our first collecting the truth-<br />

conditions for all or some of the statements <strong>and</strong> grasping the two truth-values, <strong>and</strong> then deriving the<br />

references <strong>and</strong> thereby the senses expressed by subsentential expressions?<br />

I think <strong>Frege</strong> would hold that children learn the senses of subsentential expressions of their<br />

language not by being h<strong>and</strong>ed two truth-values plus the bundle of truth-conditions for all or some<br />

sentences of that language <strong>and</strong> being <strong>to</strong>ld <strong>to</strong> go figure out all the subsentential references <strong>and</strong> thereby<br />

the subsentential senses (they would not even underst<strong>and</strong> what they were h<strong>and</strong>ed, much less the<br />

instruction), but by being given pre-linguistic explications of names of perceived objects, followed by a<br />

process of comparing those objects <strong>and</strong> abstracting imperceptible concept-senses <strong>and</strong> concepts. 14 And<br />

sense-perception is intensional in sense (2). Of course, the children would not use these senses as<br />

linguistic senses at first, <strong>and</strong> in that functional sense, these senses would not yet be linguistic senses,<br />

i.e., they would not yet be expressed by any names. They would still be mere modes of cognitive<br />

presentation, <strong>and</strong> would become linguistic senses containing modes of presentation only when used in<br />

language according <strong>to</strong> the context principle. I think that is the essential role of the principle, <strong>and</strong> the<br />

difference which <strong>Frege</strong> is concerned <strong>to</strong> distinguish between a sense <strong>and</strong> the mode of presentation it<br />

contains, pace Dummett (1981: 227). 15<br />

The problems with Dummett’s program seem so obvious <strong>and</strong> so many that it is natural <strong>to</strong><br />

wonder if I unders<strong>to</strong>od it correctly. In particular, I am criticizing what might be called the pure, ideal,<br />

or radical backward road, <strong>and</strong> insisting that Dummett adhere rigorously <strong>to</strong> it. But Dummett does not<br />

take the pure backward road. He says we are <strong>to</strong> take that road only “[a]s far as possible” (1995: 16). He<br />

assumes knowledge of the truth-values. I concede that this objection is a fair one. Pure or ideal theories<br />

24

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!