Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Heidegger's Logico-Semantic Strikeback.Alberto Voltolini - 2015 - Organon F: Medzinárodný Časopis Pre Analytickú Filozofiu 22:19-38.
    In (1959), Carnap famously attacked Heidegger for having constructed an insane metaphysics based on a misconception of both the logical form and the semantics of ordinary language. In what follows, it will be argued that, once one appropriately (i.e., in a Russellian fashion) reads Heidegger’s famous sentence that should paradigmatically exemplify such a misconception, i.e., “the nothing nothings”, there is nothing either logically or semantically wrong with it. The real controversy as to how that sentence has to be evaluated—not as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Geometry and generality in Frege's philosophy of arithmetic.Jamie Tappenden - 1995 - Synthese 102 (3):319 - 361.
    This paper develops some respects in which the philosophy of mathematics can fruitfully be informed by mathematical practice, through examining Frege's Grundlagen in its historical setting. The first sections of the paper are devoted to elaborating some aspects of nineteenth century mathematics which informed Frege's early work. (These events are of considerable philosophical significance even apart from the connection with Frege.) In the middle sections, some minor themes of Grundlagen are developed: the relationship Frege envisions between arithmetic and geometry and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  • On rigorous definitions.Nuel Belnap - 1993 - Philosophical Studies 72 (2-3):115 - 146.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   57 citations  
  • (1 other version)What is in a Definition? Understanding Frege’s Account.Edward Kanterian - 2018 - Siegener Beiträge Zur Geschichte Und Philosophie der Mathematik 9:7-46.
    Joan Weiner (2007) has argued that Frege’s definitions of numbers are linguistic stipulations, with no content-preserving or ontological point: they don’t capture any determinate content of numerals, as they have none, and don’t present numbers as preexisting objects. I show that this view is based on exegetical and systematic errors. First, Idemonstrate that Weiner misrepresents the Fregean notions of ‘Foundations-content’, sense, reference, and truth. I then consider the role of definitions, demonstrating that they cannot be mere linguistic stipulations, since they (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark