Frege viewed language to function much like mathematics. He believed that we are able to describe things in natural language to be reducible to atomic sentences that are much like functions with variables. Frege goes into further detail to allow for language to be descriptive of things that exist in the world through presenting clarification between sense and reference.
To Frege, names refer to objects, being much like numerals in functions that refer to exact values. Predicates are the functional expressions and concepts. Names and predicates cannot be complete on their own; they must be used together to effectively refer to things. Predicates by themselves only refer to functions, but with a name attached, they refer to concepts. However, it seems that Frege believes that proper names express something else, which I will refer to later on. To Frege, there are ordinary names that are attached to things and descriptions of things with proper names.
Atomic sentences have truth-values that evaluate the application of a concept to an object that is being referred. To find what the sentence refers to, the referent of the predicate must be applied to the referent of the subject. Connectives are vocabulary like “and”, “if”, and “not” that are functions from truth-values to truth tables. Each of these provide the basis for Frege’s language system such that we are able to speaking in our ordinary language, but still maintain the mathematical connection he attempts to establish early. Frege’s use of language and sentences being functions with variables is consistent with how he defines the basic constructs of what are needed in a human language.
The referent of each of the above is supposed to move Frege towards solving a fundamental pr...
... middle of paper ...
...t each person is seeing. This is the sense of the word being that the two people can switch telescopes and discover (or see again) the Moon that is being presented to them. The mode of presentation may be different, but the Moon that out in the world is still the same. Finally, there are the images of the moon that are on the retinas of the observers. This is the actual conception or idea of the word that cannot be shared between the two people, no matter how hard they may try. Although we may both be seeing the same object through the same mode of presentation, the idea that I have of the word will be completely different than the idea that another person may have of the same word.
It is important to know that when Frege says sense, he is not talking about the individual conception or idea. The telescope analogy does a great job to describe why this is the case.
In chapter three there is a somewhat disparate side of the ontological argument. It centers on the nature of God than the meaning of him. Particularly, this chapter centers on the early quality of God that is the fact that he needs to exist. Inanimate things, supplementary living things, and humans are ...
Let us take the example of knowledge of the perfectly equal -- the Equal. Nothing in the world of space and time can teach us about the Equal: there are no examples of perfectly equal objects in our world. Therefore, to first identify two equal objects, we must have had implicit knowledge of the Equal at birth. By continuing to use our senses to identify objects that are approaching the Equal, we are able to recollect - make explicit - this knowledge.
...se which…belong exclusively to the mind…things are sensed through understanding, understood through senses (Montaigne 414)”.
What we see in some things can based on our past experiences and things we’vewe have seen before. If you ever look at the clouds during the day and try to decide what you see and then ask someone else what they see it’sit is about very little chance that everyone will see the same thing. This is what I think of
a.) What is the definition of each one according to the book? Define each concept.
In addition, the nature of the universe can be also explained when Aquinas mentions that “the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification.”
"Perception - Definition of Perception by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia." Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionary. Web. 08 Feb. 2011. .
In her essay “Seeing”, Annie Dillard provides multiple examples to support her idea about perceptions. One example that Dillard uses compares two ways of seeing. The first type of seeing in the
In the Transcendental aesthetics, Kant defines the objective validity of Space and Time as concepts a priori with the help from of Geometry, showing that if we believe in the validity of Geometry, we have to believe that Space and Time are concepts a priori. In the Pure Concepts of Understanding, Kant claims that our intuitions are dependent on sensibility; everything we sense accumulates into our brain and our understanding of the information we sensed relies on organizing that data so that we can recognize the object. Thus, he asserts that understanding is not a faculty of intuition but sensibility. Furthermore, the act of organizing the data into one representation is defined as function and these functions serve as a bridge between the object and its concepts because concepts are not directly related to an object but just some representations of it. This, when function and concepts are put together, Kant concludes is defined as judgment, knowledge of the fact that there is ...
This essay hopes to define Spinoza’s reasoning behind his ‘Deus sive Natura’, arguing that God and Nature, or the universe, are but one substance. This separation is distinct to Spinoza’s substance monism, and argued through a geometric essay structure that allows reasoning to be accessible, as well as logical should the reasoning at each step have validity.
In his book, The Language of Thought, Jerry Fodor claims that i) Wittgenstein’s private language argument is not in fact against Fodor’s theory, and ii) Wittgenstein’s private language argument “isn’t really any good” (70). In this paper I hope to show that Fodor’s second claim is patently false. In aid of this I will consider Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations (243-363), Jerry Fodor's The Language of Thought (55-97), as well as Anthony Kenny’s Wittgenstein (178-202). First I shall summarize Wittgenstein’s argument; then I will examine Fodor’s response and explain why it is fallacious. In my view, Fodor is wrong because he takes Wittgenstein to be a verificationist, and also because he makes a false analogy between people and computers.
Russell’s Theory of Definite Description has totally changed the way we view definite descriptions by solving the three logical paradoxes. It is undeniable that the theory itself is not yet perfect and there can be objections on this theory. Still, until now, Russell’s theory is the most logical explanation of definite description’s role.
Perception is the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through your senses. The biggest influence we encounter is our self-concept; the way we see or feel about ourselves
Following the same path of reasoning as the dialogue, the Spirit begins by asking Fichte how he knows of external objects. In answering that the knowledge of external object arrives as a result of direct, immediate sense perception, Fichte concedes that he possesses no direct consciousness of outside objects, but only of himself. "In all perception you only perceive yourself," since perception is merely the conscious recognition of observation statements such as 'I see' ...