Naming the concept horse

Philosophical Studies 173 (10):2727-2743 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Frege’s rejection of singular reference to concepts is centrally implicated in his notorious paradox of the concept horse. I distinguish a number of claims in which that rejection might consist and detail the dialectical difficulties confronting the defense of several such claims. Arguably the least problematic such claim—that it is simply nonsense to say that a concept can be referred to with a singular term—has recently received a novel defense due to Robert Trueman. I set out Trueman’s argument for this claim, identifying and remedying some omissions and errors of formulation therein. I then develop a response to the argument by showing, pace Trueman, that it is possible—and how it is possible—to express identities between objects and concepts.

Author's Profile

Michael Price
Oxford University (DPhil)

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-02-07

Downloads
248 (#60,365)

6 months
51 (#75,890)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?