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
in reported speech (1970f: 58–59). I think this sentence is not an anomalous break in the discussion of reported speech, that is, is not an odd shift of topic to customary sense and customary reference. I think this sentence is a continuous, not to say integral, part of the two-paragraph discussion of indirect sense and indirect reference. In other words, I think this sentence indicates an exception to Frege’s rule that expressions beginning with the singular definite article refer to objects. The exception is precisely for reported speech, i.e., indirect quotation, which by definition refers to senses, as opposed to direct quotation, which refers to names (1970f: 59, 65; 1980c: 149). Senses are indirectly tied to quotation because they must be garbed in language; thus for Frege, the identity of a sense is never directly given to us, but ultimately only via names, as functionally opposed to customary references. I think this is obscured by the fact that the two paragraphs in question mainly discuss the reported speech of a speaker, while in “the sense of expression ‘A’,” “A” is a piece of speech not being attributed to a speaker. But “A” would not be an expression at all unless someone could use it, and in that broad sense “the sense of expression ‘A’” does report speech. There is no doubt that words are being quoted here. We often quote words without quoting a speaker. We simply surround the words with quotation marks. E.g., “Fermat’s Last Theorem,” which is just an “A”. Dummett is right that singular definite descriptions of the form “the F” customarily refer to objects, because customarily they logically function as object-names. But if I am right, Frege classifies “the sense of expression ‘A’” as indirect quotation, and therefore it has no customary reference, but only an indirect reference, which is its sense. Unless Dummett has independent evidence that some senses are objects, there is nothing here to show that some senses are objects. Indeed, on my reading it follows that no senses can be objects, since senses are essentially indirect references. By parity of reason, “the thought that A” refers to a thought as opposed to an object. The test is precisely that it “designates” a thought (Frege 1970f: 66; see 59), and the mark is precisely that we are “concerned” with thought as opposed to reference (1970f: 63, 67). At best, it could only refer to an object which 38
epresents the thought. But Frege rules out that possibility, since he holds that it refers to the thought. 21 On Dummett’s view, Frege’s sentence about the sense of expression “A” is even odder than I have indicated. For I assume that “A” can be any expression, including function-names such as “F( )” as well as object-names such as “b”. But the sense of expression “F( )” is essentially incomplete, while all objects are essentially complete. Therefore, if “the sense of expression ‘F( )’” must refer to an object, then it cannot refer to the sense expressed by “F( )”. On my reading, the absurdity vanishes. “The sense of expression ‘F( )’” refers to an incomplete sense, not to an object, because it makes an indirect quotation. My assumption might be wrong. Frege’s capital “A” looks like a function-name, but it marks no argument-place. But surely Frege is using “A” to range at least over all names. And even if he is not, the problem of the sense of expression “F( )” remains. Dummett is part of a crowd. Gustav Bergmann, Rulon S. Wells, Howard Jackson, and Charles Caton all hold that senses are objects (my 2003: 65). Michael Beaney argues that they are or ought to be (1997: 28–36; see 29 n.67). Caton argues that all senses are objects because “the sense of expression ‘A’” always refers to an object. He admits both that all objects are complete and that some senses are incomplete. He admits that this implies the formal contradiction that some objects are both complete and incomplete. He does not propose to address the problem in his paper (1968). In Frege: Philosophy of Language, Dummett says, “The sense of a predicate is indeed to be considered an object....” (1981: 294). For Dummett, the only other “alternative” is that it is a function, which he rejects (1981: 291, pace 442 distinguishing the realm of references, including objects and functions, from senses). He then suggests that it is “incomplete only in that it would be necessary” to grasp it as the sense of an incomplete expression (1981: 291). That is, he thinks all senses are really complete. 39
- Page 1 and 2: Dummett’s Backward Road to Frege
- Page 3 and 4: condition for each of its sentences
- Page 5 and 6: is to be any other object namable i
- Page 7 and 8: card packs and of figures subject t
- Page 9 and 10: well-defined as mutual and is there
- Page 11 and 12: eferences in a given sentence. The
- Page 13 and 14: always prior to the object-language
- Page 15 and 16: for identifying senses given the tr
- Page 17 and 18: sentences, and we were only suppose
- Page 19 and 20: why he thinks his program will work
- Page 21 and 22: (I waive the possibility of present
- Page 23 and 24: many more languages L** which lack
- Page 25 and 26: often have problems which more subt
- Page 27 and 28: of “On Denoting” in order to se
- Page 29 and 30: in which the reference is given to
- Page 31 and 32: Recalling the forced choice argumen
- Page 33 and 34: If we remain within the realm of se
- Page 35 and 36: sometimes he has references more in
- Page 37: only senses can guide us on how to
- Page 41 and 42: gap needing completion. In language
- Page 43 and 44: objects....” (1981a: 132, my emph
- Page 45 and 46: out of senses. We can do so precise
- Page 47 and 48: Dummett calls the second problem of
- Page 49 and 50: article indicates reference to a co
- Page 51 and 52: has to be drawn between the sense a
- Page 53 and 54: and all the references on another.
- Page 55 and 56: or tones when we customarily indica
- Page 57 and 58: eversing the metaphysical order of
- Page 59 and 60: entities in different categories, w
- Page 61 and 62: (3) convey forces (such as assertio
- Page 63 and 64: We cannot need to be guaranteed to
- Page 65 and 66: It seems, then, that intuitionism c
- Page 67 and 68: 7. Frege (1979j: 271; see 1980c: 37
- Page 69 and 70: not even bothering to check for tha
- Page 71 and 72: third suggestions are principled in
- Page 73 and 74: 176-77). Since senses are entities,
- Page 75 and 76: of imperceptible senses in Grundges
- Page 77 and 78: mathematical functions are themselv
- Page 79 and 80: logical does not matter to this poi
- Page 81 and 82: in the sense in which philosophers
- Page 83 and 84: 17. ———. 1981. “Frege on Id
- Page 85 and 86: ———. 1970b. “Function and C
epresents the thought. But <strong>Frege</strong> rules out that possibility, since he holds that it refers <strong>to</strong> the thought. 21<br />
On Dummett’s view, <strong>Frege</strong>’s sentence about the sense of expression “A” is even odder than I<br />
have indicated. For I assume that “A” can be any expression, including function-names such as “F( )”<br />
as well as object-names such as “b”. But the sense of expression “F( )” is essentially incomplete, while<br />
all objects are essentially complete. Therefore, if “the sense of expression ‘F( )’” must refer <strong>to</strong> an<br />
object, then it cannot refer <strong>to</strong> the sense expressed by “F( )”.<br />
On my reading, the absurdity vanishes. “The sense of expression ‘F( )’” refers <strong>to</strong> an incomplete<br />
sense, not <strong>to</strong> an object, because it makes an indirect quotation.<br />
My assumption might be wrong. <strong>Frege</strong>’s capital “A” looks like a function-name, but it marks no<br />
argument-place. But surely <strong>Frege</strong> is using “A” <strong>to</strong> range at least over all names. And even if he is not,<br />
the problem of the sense of expression “F( )” remains.<br />
Dummett is part of a crowd. Gustav Bergmann, Rulon S. Wells, Howard Jackson, <strong>and</strong> Charles<br />
Ca<strong>to</strong>n all hold that senses are objects (my 2003: 65). Michael Beaney argues that they are or ought <strong>to</strong><br />
be (1997: 28–36; see 29 n.67).<br />
Ca<strong>to</strong>n argues that all senses are objects because “the sense of expression ‘A’” always refers <strong>to</strong><br />
an object. He admits both that all objects are complete <strong>and</strong> that some senses are incomplete. He admits<br />
that this implies the formal contradiction that some objects are both complete <strong>and</strong> incomplete. He does<br />
not propose <strong>to</strong> address the problem in his paper (1968).<br />
In <strong>Frege</strong>: Philosophy of Language, Dummett says, “The sense of a predicate is indeed <strong>to</strong> be<br />
considered an object....” (1981: 294). For Dummett, the only other “alternative” is that it is a function,<br />
which he rejects (1981: 291, pace 442 distinguishing the realm of references, including objects <strong>and</strong><br />
functions, from senses). He then suggests that it is “incomplete only in that it would be necessary” <strong>to</strong><br />
grasp it as the sense of an incomplete expression (1981: 291). That is, he thinks all senses are really<br />
complete.<br />
39
Change language