Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T20:27:31.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LOGICAL CONTEXTUALITY IN FREGE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2018

BRICE HALIMI
BRICE HALIMI*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Université Paris Nanterre
*
*DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITÉ PARIS NANTERRE NANTERRE, FRANCE E-mail: bhalimi@parisnanterre.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Logical universalism, a label that has been pinned on to Frege, involves the conflation of two features commonly ascribed to logic: universality and radicality. Logical universality consists in logic being about absolutely everything. Logical radicality, on the other hand, corresponds to there being the one and the same logic that any reasoning must comply with. The first part of this paper quickly remarks that Frege’s conception of logic makes logical universality prevail and does not preclude the admission of different contexts of discourse. The paper then aims to make it clear how Frege’s universalism can make sense of contextuality. Drawing on a suggestion made by Frege in his discussion of Hilbert, it shows that a properly Fregean notion of model can be devised. Taking up a suggestion from Wilfrid Hodges and William Demopoulos that the non-logical constants of a formal language can be compared to indexicals, this paper shows, pace Hodges and Demopoulos, that such an understanding of non-logical constants is not beyond Frege’s horizon. A formal framework, based on the modern tool of fibrations, is set out to explain and justify this point. This framework allows one to compare Frege and Tarski, by formalizing Frege’s suggestion and by presenting Tarski’s semantics in a generalized setting.

Keywords

03A0501A6003B30Frege“Foundations of Geometry,” logical universalismnon-logical constants as indexicalsFregean model theory
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antonelli, A. & May, R. (2005). Frege’s new science. In Beaney, M. and Reck, E. H., editors. Gottlob Frege. Critical Assessments of Leading Philosophers. Frege’s Philosophy of Logic, Vol. II, Chapter 26. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 156–189. Originally published in Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic (2000).Google Scholar
Blanchette, P. (2005). Frege and Hilbert on consistency. In Beaney, M. and Reck, E. H., editors. Gottlob Frege. Critical Assessments of Leading Philosophers. Frege’s Philosophy of Logic, Vol. II, Chapter 20. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 29–49. Originally published in the Journal of Philosophy (1996).Google Scholar
Blanchette, P. (2014). Frege on formality and the 1906 independence-test. In Link, G., editor. Formalism and Beyond. On the Nature of Mathematical Discourse. Logos, Vol. 23. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar
Bonnay, D. (2009). Carnap’s criterion of logicality. In Wagner, P., editor. Carnap’s Logical Syntax of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (2002). The Logical Syntax of Language. Peru, Illinois: Open Court. Originally published: London: K. Paul Trench, 1937.Google Scholar
de Rouilhan, P. (1998). Tarski et l’universalité de la logique. In Nef, F. and Vernant, D., editors. Le formalisme en question. Le tournant des années 30. Paris: Vrin, pp. 85–102.Google Scholar
de Rouilhan, P. (2012). In defense of logical universalism: Taking issue with Jean van Heijenoort. Logica Universalis, 6(3–4), 553–586.Google Scholar
Demopoulos, W. (1994). Frege, Hilbert, and the conceptual structure of model theory. History and Philosophy of Logic, 15, 211–225.Google Scholar
Dreben, B. & van Heijenoort, J. (1986). Introductory note to 1929a, 1930 and 1930a. In Feferman, S., Dawson, J. W., Kleene, S. C., Moore, G. H., Solovay, , R. M. and van Heijenoort, , J., editors. Kurt Gödel, Collected Works, Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar
Etchemendy, J. (1990). The Concept of Logical Consequence. The David Hume Series. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1893). Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. Jena: Verlag von Hermann Pohle. Georg Olms Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1903). Über die Grundlagen der Geometrie. Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker Vereinigung, 12, 319–324, 368–375. English translation in Frege (1971), 22–37.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1906). Über die Grundlagen der Geometrie. Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker Vereinigung, 15, 293–309, 377–403, 423–430. English translation in Frege (1971), 49–112.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1971). On the Foundations of Geometry and Formal Theories of Arithmetic. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Translated and with an Introduction by Kluge, Eike-Henner W..Google Scholar
Frege, G. (2013). Basic Laws of Arithmetic, Vols. I and II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Translated and edited by Ebert, Philip A. and Rossberg, Marcus, with Wright, Crispin.Google Scholar
Halimi, B. (2011). The Versatility of Universality in Principia Mathematica. History and Philosophy of Logic, 32(3), 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, R. G. (2007). Frege and semantics. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 75, 27–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1997). Lingua Universalis vs. Calculus Ratiocinator: An Ultimate Presupposition of Twentieth-Century Philosophy. Selected Papers 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Hodges, W. (1986). Truth in a structure. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 86, 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, B. (1999). Categorical Logic and Type Theory. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 141. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1992). Lectures on Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Translated and edited by Michael Young, J..Google Scholar
Korhonen, A. (2012). Logic as a science and logic as a theory: Remarks on Frege, Russell and the logocentric predicament. Logica Universalis, 6(3–4), 597–613. Special issue: Centenary, van Heijenoort.Google Scholar
Landini, G. (1998). Russell’s Hidden Substitutional Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. (2002). Frege, Kant, and the logic in logicism. The Philosophical Review, 111, 25–65.Google Scholar
MacLane, S. & Moerdijk, I. (1992). Sheaves in Geometry and Logic. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Perry, J. (1977). Frege on demonstratives. The Philosophical Review, 87(4), 474–497.Google Scholar
Resnik, M. D. (1974). The Frege-Hilbert controversy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 34, 386–403.Google Scholar
Ricketts, T. (2005). Frege’s 1906 foray into metalogic. In Beaney, M. and Reck, E. H., editors. Gottlob Frege. Critical Assessments of Leading Philosophers. Frege’s Philosophy of Logic, Vol. II, Chapter 25. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 136–155. Originally published in Philosophical Topics (1998).Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2005). Truth and metatheory in Frege. In Beaney, M. and Reck, E. H., editors. Gottlob Frege. Critical Assessments of Leading Philosophers. Frege’s Philosophy of Logic, Vol. II, Chapter 24. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 109–135. Originally published in Pacific Philosophical Quarterly (1996).Google Scholar
Sullivan, P. M. (2005). Metaperspectives and internalism in Frege. In Beaney, M. and Reck, E. H., editors. Gottlob Frege. Critical Assessments of Leading Philosophers. Frege’s Philosophy of Logic, Vol. II, Chapter 23. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 85–105. Originally published in D. M. Gabbay and J. Woods (eds), Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Logic, Vol. 3 (2004).Google Scholar
Tappenden, J. (1995). Geometry and generality in Frege. Synthese, 102(3), 319–361.Google Scholar
Tappenden, J. (2000). Frege on axioms, indirect proofs, and independence arguments in geometry: Did Frege reject independence arguments? Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 41(3), 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tappenden, J. (2005). Metatheory and mathematical practice in Frege. In Beaney, M. and Reck, E. H., editors. Gottlob Frege. Critical Assessments of Leading Philosophers. Frege’s Philosophy of Logic, Vol. II, Chapter 27. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 190–228. Originally published in Philosophical Topics (1997). Revised and shortened by the author.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1983). The concept of truth in formalized languages. In Corcoran, J., editor. Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Papers from 1923 to 1938, Chapter VIII. Second Revised Edition. Indianapolis: Hackett, pp. 152–278. Translated by Woodger, J. H..Google Scholar
van Heijenoort, J. (1967). Logic as calculus and logic as language. Synthese, 17, 324–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar