If we make the basic assumption that the components of a proposition have reference on the model of proper name and bearer, we face the problem of distinguishing the proposition from a mere list' of names. We neutralize the problem posed by that assumption of we first of all follow Wiggins and distinguish, in every predicate, a strictly predicative element (the copula), and a strictly non-predicative conceptual component (available to be quantified over). If we further allow the copula itself to (...) conform to the basic assumption, a regress ( Bradley's regress') arises: the referent of the copula will be instantiation, the instantiation of instantiation etc. To avert the regress, Wiggins simply legislates that the basic assumption is to fail for the copula. But we are entitled to regard the regress as constitution not a difficulty, but the solution: the infinitism it imports (capturable in a finitistic theory of meaning) is just what the unity of the proposition "is". (edited). (shrink)

I expose and discuss here the different arguments Bradley used against the tenability of relations as genuine entities, as well as the corresponding arguments against predicates, both in metaphysical and logical terms, and this always in the framework of his semantic general ideas on judgment and truth. Also, I have found useful to try to find similar arguments in Frege, in order to show that, no matter how different their respective goals and methods may have been, both philosophers tried to (...) solve very similar problems regarding the nature of judgment and the role of relations in explaining its deep unity. Then I shall point out the multiple nature of the general problem involved, and finish with some reflections about its importance for analytical philosophers, especially for Russell. (shrink)

A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.As is well known, according to Charles S. Peirce one of the principal tasks of logic is the analysis of reasoning. This was indeed the explicit purpose of his logical algebras and graphical logic, and Peirce often credits himself with possessing a special gift for logical analysis. Yet he surprisingly also holds that “absolute completeness of logical analysis is no less unattainable [than] is omniscience. Carry it as far as you (...) please, and something will always remain unanalyzed.” 1 The question thus arises as to what Peirce could have meant by saying that, in logical analysis, something remains unanalyzed. This question, important.. (shrink)