Gregory Landini

Confronted with Russell's Paradox, Frege wrote an appendix to volume II of his _Grundgesetze der Arithmetik_. In it he offered a revision to Basic Law V, and proclaimed with confidence that the major theorems for arithmetic are recoverable. This paper shows that Frege's revised system has been seriously undermined by interpretations that transcribe his system into a predicate logic that is inattentive to important details of his concept-script. By examining the revised system as a concept-script, we see how Frege imagined that minor modifications of his former proofs would recover arithmetic.

This dissertation is a study in the comparative formal ontology of fiction. We deal primarily with the alternative ontological frameworks of Alexius Meinong and early Bertrand Russell as each appears in or has influenced the development of intensional logics reconstructing their basic insights. Our aim is to develop an early Russellian account of fiction--an account that can handle the semantics of stories about any manner of "object" of thought, purple gnomes, "round-squares", paradoxical sets, or anything else one might imagine. We develop such an account of fiction from within the type-free intensional logic HST*D), which is a theory of nominalized predicates formulated by Professor Nino Cocchiarella. ;Our Russellian theory is compared with reconstructions of Meinongian views, for example, Terence Parsons' Nonexistent Objects, and Edward Zalta'sObjects. These frameworks present intensional logics which formalize alternative approaches to a Meinongian theory of objects; the former adopts a distinction in kinds of predicates, the latter distinguishes modes of predication. It is found that the valuable applications of both Meinongian frameworks are captured in our early Russellian theory--and without the oddities of Meinongianism. ;The Meinogian regards all reference in our common place intentional activities such as planning, the framing of scientific hypotheses, story telling, deceiving, and the like, as semantically on par. He thus introduces nonexistents, both possible and impossible, as legitimate concrete objects "before the mind". In contrast, our Russellian account treats "reference to the nonexistent" as a part of a general account of nominalization to the linguistic expressions we have for denoting concepts which purport to refer. In this way, we provide new insights for resolving perplexing issues involved in formulating the semantics of fiction, and of natural language in general. It is revealed by comparing our Russellian approach with Hector-Neri Castaneda's Guise Theory, that the representation of the "content" of thought requires only that we represent the conceptual activity of thought, and not that we postulate objects, intentional and otherwise, which are literally "before" the mind. Thus, our Russellian account has many important applications for the development of a general semantics for natural language, and for the philosophy of mind

It is well known that in _Principia Mathematica_ Russell offers a theory of definite descriptions and holds that ‘existence’ is not a property. It is less well known that in “On Denoting” he discusses the version of Anselm’s ontological argument for God formulated by Descartes, accepting the premiss “Existence is a perfection” and assessing the argument as valid but question-begging. This is different from his later comments in _A History of Western Philosophy_ which find the argument invalid. Indeed, given the sanctions of _Principia_, one might have thought he would find the argument logically ungrammatical. This paper shows how Russell might formulate and evaluate Anselm’s ontological argument and the version offered by Descartes in a way that avoids the conflict.1.

Hume's Principle, dear to neo-Logicists, maintains that equinumerosity is both necessary and sufficient for sameness of cardinal number. All the same, Whitehead demonstrated in Principia Mathematica's logic of relations that Cantor's power-class theorem entails that Hume's Principle admits of exceptions. Of course, Hume's Principle concerns cardinals and in Principia's ‘no-classes’ theory cardinals are not objects in Frege's sense. But this paper shows that the result applies as well to the theory of cardinal numbers as objects set out in Frege's Grundgesetze. Though Frege did not realize it, Cantor's power-theorem entails that Frege's cardinals as objects do not always obey Hume's Principle.

Wittgenstein's Tractatus has generated many interpretations since its publication in 1921, but over the years a consensus has developed concerning its criticisms of Russell's philosophy. In Wittgenstein's Apprenticeship with Russell, Gregory Landini draws extensively from his work on Russell's unpublished manuscripts to show that the consensus characterises Russell with positions he did not hold. Using a careful analysis of Wittgenstein's writings he traces the 'Doctrine of Showing' and the 'fundamental idea' of the Tractatus to Russell's logical atomist research program, which dissolves philosophical problems by employing variables with structure. He argues that Russell and his apprentice Wittgenstein were allies in a research program that makes logical analysis and reconstruction the essence of philosophy. His sharp and controversial study will be essential reading for all who are interested in this rich period in the history of analytic philosophy.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:RUSSELL TO FREGE, 24 MAY 1903: "I BELIEVE I HAVE DISCOVERED THAT CLASSES ARE ENTIRELY SUPERFLUOUS" GREGORY LANDINI Philosophy / University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242, USA It was his consideration of Cantor's proof that there is no greatest cardinal, Russell recalls in My Philosophical Development, that led in the spring of 1901 to the discovery of the paradox of the class of all classes not members of themselves. "Never glad confident morning again", were Whitehead's reported words (MPD, p. 58). Whitehead was, of course, wrong. Russell had many new confident mornings. One in particular apparently occurred on 19 May 1903. On 23 May Russell wrote in his journal: "Four days ago 1 solved the Contradiction -the relief of this is unspeakable" (Papm 12: 24). The "solution" was communicated to Whitehead, who responded by telegram: "Heartiest congratulations Aristoteles secundus. 1 am delighted" (Clark, p. III). But it was not long before Russell knew his proposal was inadequate. On the form he would scrawl: "A propos of solVing the Contradiction. [But the solution was wrong]" (ibid; Russell's brackets). The episode is intriguing. What was the proposal? Russell's correspondence with Frege sheds some light. On 20 October 1902 Frege had sent a letter suggesting a way to avoid the contradiction. Frege's suggestion, formulated in a great hurry so that it might appear in the Appendix of Vol. II of the Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, was to abandon his Basic Law V; zcj>z =zez. ==. (x)(x. ==. ex), and to replace it by Russell to Frege, 24 May I903 161 V' zz =zez. ==. (x)(x *zz & x* zez: ~ : x. ==. ex). The underlying idea was to accept that one concept may have the same extension as another even though the two concepts are not coextensive. Though he thought the underlying idea "probably correct",! Russell expressed reservation in a reply of 12 December:... I find it difficult to accept your solution even though it is probably correct. Do you deny, e.g., that all classes form a class? And if this is admitted, then it is possible that - ana. Moreover, the class of non-humans is a. non-human. Otherwise it must be admitted that not ail objects fall either under a or not-a; namely, if a is a range of values, then a fails neither under a nor under not-a. This contradicts the law of excluded middle, which will be inconvenient to say the least.2 (Frege I980, p. 151) Frege's response of 28 December does not mention the contradiction, and Volume II of his Grundgesetze appeared early in 1903. Russell's reservations concerning Frege's solution· continue in a letter to Frege of 20 February 1903: What you say about my contradiction is of the greatest interest to me. Do you believe that the range of values remains unchanged if some subclass of the class is assigned to it as a new member? Extension seems to fit this view better than intension. Bur I fe;el far from clear about this question. (Frege I980, p. 155) Frege replied on 21 May, explaining that in general a class does not remain unchanged when a particular subclass is added to it, but that two concepts may have the same extension (the same class) when the only difference between them is that this class falls under the first concept but not under the second (p. 157). Then on 24 May 1903 Russell excitedly wrote Frege of a solution of the paradox of classes: "I received your letter this morning, and 1 am replying to it at once, for russell: the Journal of the Berrrand Russdl Archives McMasrer University Library Press n.S.•2 (wincer 1992-93): 160-85 ISSN 0036-01631 • The same evaluation appears in Russell's Appendix to The Principles ofMathematics (p. 522). 2 Frege's '\- a II b" is Peano and Russell's "a E b". Russell should have put "~ana". 162 GREGORY LANDINI I believe I have discovered that classes are entirely superfluous. Your designation i(z) can be used for itself, and x E i(z) for (x).... this seems to me to avoid the contradiction" (p. 159). The proposal is also mentioned in a...

Frege seems to hold two incompatible theses:(i) that sentences differing in structure can yet express the same sense; and (ii) that the senses of the meaningful parts of a complex term are determinate parts of the sense of the term. Dummett offered a solution, distinguishing analysis from decomposition. The present paper offers an embellishment of Dummett’s distinction by providing a way of depicting the internal structures of complex senses—determinate structures that yield distinct decompositions. Decomposition is then shown to be adequate as a foundation for the informativity and analyticity of logic.

This paper examines the quantification theory of *9 of Principia Mathematica. The focus of the discussion is not the philosophical role that section *9 plays in Principia's full ramified type-theory. Rather, the paper assesses the system of *9 as a quantificational theory for the ordinary predicate calculus. The quantifier-free part of the system of *9 is examined and some misunderstandings of it are corrected. A flaw in the system of *9 is discovered, but it is shown that with a minor repair the system is semantically complete. Finally, the system is contrasted with the system of *8 of Principia's second edition

There are many wonderful puzzles concerning Principia Mathematica, but none are more striking than those arising from the crisis that befell Whitehead in November of 1910. Volume 1 appeared in December of 1910. Volume 2 on cardinal numbers and Russell's relation arithmetic might have appeared in 1911 but for Whitehead's having halted the printing. He discovered that inferences involving the typically ambiguous notation ‘Nc‘α’ for the cardinal number of α might generate fallacies. When the volume appeared in 1912, it was extensively emended by Whitehead and accompanied by a Prefatory Statement of Symbolic Conventions. This paper endeavors to recover from Whitehead's bad emendations—including his bewildering thesis that since ‘‘α’ is ‘true whenever significant,’ ‘α is to be accepted. It is supposedly a fallacy to apply Modus Ponens and infer Nc‘α from ‘α and‘‘α.

This book offers a thought-provoking critique of analytic philosophy focusing on four central figures--Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, and Quine. In Wang's view, what lies "beyond" analytic philosophy is the abandonment of Empiricist accounts of how we know and epistemological limitations on what can be known. In making the foundations of science the center of "legitimate" philosophy, Analytic Empiricism has blocked important global perspectives found, for example, in continental and oriental philosophies. Wang advocates a Kantian transcendental dialectic: What explanation is required if we are to do justice to the many facets of knowledge, including artistic, poetic, emotional, and ethical as well as scientific? His thesis is that "intuition" must reclaim a central place in the answer.

The so-called “Slingshot” argument purports to show that an ontology of facts is untenable. In this paper, we address a minimal slingshot restricted to an ontology of physical facts as truth-makers for empirical physical statements. Accepting that logical matters have no bearing on the physical facts that are truth-makers for empirical physical statements and that objects are themselves constituents of such facts, our minimal slingshot argument purportedly shows that any two physical statements with empirical content are made true by one and the same fact. It is well-known that Russell’s theory of descriptions may be employed to reveal a scope fallacy in the slingshot argument. This paper reveals that there is a quite independent Russellian criticism of the slingshot argument based on the thesis that facts are structured entities

Unaware of Frege's 1879 Begriffsschrift, Russell's 1903 The Principles of Mathematics set out a calculus for logic whose foundation was the doctrine that any such calculus must adopt only one style of variables–entity (individual) variables. The idea was that logic is a universal and all-encompassing science, applying alike to whatever there is–propositions, universals, classes, concrete particulars. Unfortunately, Russell's early calculus has appeared archaic if not completely obscure. This paper is an attempt to recover the formal system, showing its philosophical background and its semantic completeness with respect to the tautologies of a modern sentential calculus

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:January 22, 2009 (8:41 pm) G:\WPData\TYPE2802\russell 28,2 048red.wpd russell: the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies n.s. 28 (winter 2008–09): 127–42 The Bertrand Russell Research Centre, McMaster U. issn 0036-01631; online 1913-8032 YABLO’S PARADOX AND RUSSELLIAN PROPOSITIONS Gregory Landini Philosophy / U. of Iowa Iowa City, ia 52242–1408, usa [email protected] Is self-reference necessary for the production of Liar paradoxes? Yablo has given an argument that self-reference is not necessary. He hopes to show that the indexical apparatus of self-reference of the traditional Liar paradox can be avoided by appealing to a list, a consecutive sequence, of sentences correlated one-one withnaturalnumbers.Yabloopens his “Paradox without Self-Reference” (Analysis, 1993) with the assumption that there is a sequence such that: Snz: “(;k)(k > n.!. True Sk)” Each sentence on Yablo’s list is supposed to be correlated one-one with number n. Each sentence is supposed to say that for every natural number kz greater than n, the k-th sentence on the list is not true. By comparing Yablo’s construction to an analogous construction with early Russellian propositions, we show that Yablo has failed to generate a paradox. 1. vicious circularity in yablo’s paradox S elf-reference has been taken to be the source of paradoxes. Poincaré and Russell are commonly associated with this thesis. In an amusing passage, the mathematician Jourdain recalls something of the dialogue between them: Nearly all mathematicians agreed that the way to solve these paradoxes was simply not to mention them; but there was some divergence of opinion as to how they were to be unmentioned. It was clearly unsatisfactory merely not to mention them. Thus Poincaré was apparently of the opinion that the best way of avoiding such awkward subjects was to mention that they were not to be mentioned. But [as Russell put it] “one might as well, in talking to a man with January 22, 2009 (8:41 pm) G:\WPData\TYPE2802\russell 28,2 048red.wpd 128 gregory landini 1 Philip Jourdain, The Philosophy of Mr. B*rtr*nd R*ss*llz (London: Allen & Unwin, 1918), p. 77. Russell is quoted from “Mathematical Logic as Based on the Theory of Types” (1908), LK, p. 63. 2 “On ‘Insolubilia’ and Their Solution By Symbolic Logic”, in B. Russell, Essays in Analysis, ed. Douglas Lackey (London: Allen & Unwin, 1973), p. 196. 3 I believe that this is Russell’s view in 1906. See Gregory Landini, “Russell’s Separation of the Logical and Semantic Paradoxes”, Revue internationale de philosophie 58 (2004): 257–94 (issue titled “Russell en héritage / Le centenaire des Principes”, ed. Philippe de Rouilhan). a long nose, say: ‘When I speak of noses, I except such as are inordinately long’, which would not be a very successful eTort to avoid a painful topic.”1 Poincaré maintained that one should exclude the oTending cases and therebyavoid“viciouscircles”ofself-referencewhichgenerateparadoxes. Russell objected: We may illustrate this by what M. Poincaré says concerning Richard’s paradox. Having Wrst put E = “all numbers deWnable in a Wnite number of words” we arrive at a paradox, due, says M. Poincaré, to our having included a number only deWnable in a Wnite number of words by means of E. This vicious circle he proposes to avoid by deWning E as “all numbers deWnable in a Wnite number of words without mentioning Ey”. To the uninitiated, this deWnition looks more circular than ever.2 Russell held that some paradoxes such as those of classes require, in order to exclude oTending cases without mentioning them, a “reconstruction of logical Wrst principles”. Others, such as Richard’s, are to be dismissed because they involve confused and viciously circular notions of “deWnability ”.3 Is self-reference necessary for paradoxes? The question is not well crafted. There are quite diTerent notions ofz “self-reference” involved in paradoxes. The self-reference involved in the Liar “This sentence is false” is provided by an apparatus of indexicals. This apparatus is quite distinct from the self-reference involved in Russell’s early ontology of propositions (as mind- and language-independent states of aTairs). This is an ontological self...

Poetic license is an essential feature of intentionality. The mind is free to think about any objects, even objects with logically incompatible properties. Some philosophers maintain that a theory that embraces an ontology of objects of thought is indispensable to any account of the nature of intentionality. Any such theory, however, must face paradoxes whose solutions conflict with poetic license. In this paper, I propose a theory which rejects the argument from indispensability. The theory maintains that the intentionality of thought is produced by the quantificational nature of the apparatus of thought. All de re ascriptions of propositional attitudes must respect simple-type stratification and quantify over concepts with a predicable nature only. There are no fictional objects. There are concepts which, in the impredicative reflections of quantificational thought, are presented as if objects of thought.