Michael Kremer

At _Tractatus_ 4.0031, Wittgenstein writes that ‘Russell's merit is to have shown that the apparent logical form of a proposition need not be its real form.’ What precisely did Wittgenstein take himself to have learned from Russell? The easy answer is that in ‘On Denoting,’ Russell showed that the logical form of sentences containing denoting phrases differs from that suggested by their surface grammar, but can be displayed perspicuously in a formal language. Thus, Russell's merit is to have shown that ‘colloquial language disguises the thought’ (_Tractatus_ 4.002), while a formal language can reveal the form of the thought which colloquial language occludes. This interpretation faces several difficulties. Given Frege's analysis of universal propositions as containing covert applications of the conditional, why should this be Russell's merit, rather than Frege's? Why is Russell's merit mentioned in a comment (4.0031) on 4.003, which explains that the problems of philosophy are nonsensical, rather than on 4.002? How is Russell's merit related to the ‘critique of language’ identified with ‘all philosophy’ in 4.0031? The chapter develops an alternative interpretation capable of answering these questions, based on a careful account of the development and content of Wittgenstein's account of philosophical nonsense, and of Russell's use of the theory of descriptions to solve philosophical puzzles. Russell's merit is shown to involve the idea that a formal language can be used to reveal categorial equivocations in the nonsensical sentences of philosophers, thus showing those sentences to have no determinate logical form at all.

Frege’s definitions in Part III of _Begriffsschrift_ introduce novel forms of variable-binding and quantification. Frege’s commentary, however, shows that he did not fully grasp the logical significance of his notation, treating the new variables as themselves somehow defined. In _Grundgesetze_, such issues are avoided by exploiting the value-range notation as a substitute for functional abstraction, relying on the inconsistent Basic Law V. In presenting Frege’s Theorem without appeal to Basic Law V, Richard Heck reinstates a generalized form of the notation of _Begriffsschrift_ by using a higher-order logic employing generalized variable-binding to form names of higher-level functions. Heck and Robert May suggest that by the time of _Grundgesetze_ Frege had achieved the necessary understanding of variable-binding to appreciate Heck’s notation. However, even the later Frege had only a piecemeal characterization of what we now see as falling together as variable-binding. For him, different forms of variable-binding do different logical work, marked by distinct ranges of variables. Eliminating the value-range notation in his definitions after the manner of Heck would require rethinking the role of variable-binding operators. This would not be philosophically cost-free for Frege, though there is some slight evidence that Frege may have begun to move in this direction toward the end of his career.

The first chapter explores the theory developed in Kripke's "Outline of a Theory of Truth." A tension in Kripke's account of the concept of truth is revealed--a conflict between two intuitions. The first intuition, called the "fixed point conception of truth," is that the whole meaning of the truth predicate is given by the formula "we may assert of a sentence that it is true iff we may assert that sentence." The second intuition, called the "thesis of the supervenience of semantics," is that the interpretation of the truth predicate is determined by the interpretations of all the other non-logical constants of the language. I show that these two intuitions cannot be reconciled within the context of Kripke's theory, and I argue for the choice of the fixed point conception of truth over the principle of the supervenience of semantics. Chief among the considerations that I advance is the fact that the fixed point conception of truth yields a natural logic of truth. In the second chapter I present that logic of truth in the form of a cut-free sequent calculus. I then turn, in chapter three, to a discussion of the significance of such cut-free sequent calculi. I argue that we may view the sequent calculus introduction rules for a logical constant as giving the meaning of that constant, under certain conditions. In particular, we can see our logic of truth as providing an explication of our intuitive concept of truth which complements Kripke's original model-theoretic explication. The fourth chapter takes up some criticisms of Kripke's theory which center on the logic of truth. In addition, the general ideas developed in the first three chapters are applied in a discussion of the various schemes of three-valued logic which can be used in the development of Kripke's approach. Finally, in the last chapter, it is shown that Kripke's technical concepts, and the logical ideas developed in the second and third chapters, can be used to provide a unified account of many contexts in which paradox arises

Gyula begins with a contrast between contemporary scare-quotes essentialism and Aristotelian full-blooded essentialism. The former is a semantic thesis couched in the vocabulary of possible-worlds semantics, holding that some terms are rigid designators, while the latter is a metaphysical thesis, couched in a more ancient vocabulary, holding that things have essences. Gyula argues that the more traditional metaphysical framework deserves reconsideration, both because it can help us with problems arising from the contemporary approach, and because it possesses greater expressive power than the contemporary approach. He presents a fragmentary formal semantics for the traditional approach, and argues that this semantics enables us to see how the problems of contemporary essentialism can be avoided while at the same time other properly metaphysical issues, which are unapproachable from within the contemporary model due to its expressive weakness, become available for investigation. The semantics that he presents seems intended to establish the intelligibility of the traditional vocabulary, and so of the thesis of Aristotelian essentialism which is couched in it. Gyula then argues that this thesis is in fact true, using the vocabulary which the semantics has rendered legitimate

My title1 is taken from one of the most obscure, and most discussed, sections of an already obscure and much discussed work, the discussion of the self, the world, and solipsism in sections 5.6-5.641 of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico- Philosophicus.2 Wittgenstein writes: 5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. 5.61 Logic fills the world: the limits of the world are also its limits. We cannot therefore say in logic: This and this there is in the world, that there is not. For that would apparently presuppose that we exclude certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case since otherwise logic must get outside the limits of the world: that is

Gilbert Ryle’s distinction between knowledge-how and knowledge-that emerged from his criticism of the “intellectualist legend” that to do something intelligently is “to do a bit of theory and then to do a bit of practice,” and became a philosophical commonplace in the second half of the last century. In this century Jason Stanley has attacked Ryle’s distinction, arguing that “knowing-how is a species of knowing-that,” and accusing Ryle of setting up a straw man in his critique of “intellectualism.” Examining the use of the terms “intellectualism” and “anti-intellectualism” in the first half of the 20th century, in a wide-ranging debate in the social sciences as well as in philosophy, I show that Ryle was not criticizing a straw man, but a live historical position. In the context of this controversy, Ryle’s position represents a third way between “intellectualism” and “anti-intellectualism,” an option that has largely gone missing in the 21st century discussion. This argument illustrates how history can inform the history of philosophy, and how the history of philosophy can inform contemporary philosophical inquiry.

In work culminating in Know How (2009), Jason Stanley argues, against Gilbert Ryle, that knowledge-how is a species of knowledge-that. In How Propaganda Works (2015), Stanley portrays this work as undermining a “flawed ideology” supporting elitist valuations of intellectual work and workers. However, the link between Stanley’s two philosophical projects is weak. Ryle’s distinction between knowledge-how and knowledge-that lacks the political consequences foreseen by Stanley. Versions of “intellectualism” have as much potential to align with hierarchical political systems as do versions of “anti-intellectualism.” Consequently, the debate about knowledge-how and knowledge-that comes apart from Stanley’s more recent concerns about flawed ideologies.En un trabajo que encuentra su culminación en Know How (2009), Jason Stanely argumenta, en contra de Gilbert Ryle, que el saber-cómo es una especie del saber-qué. En How Propaganda Works (2015), Stanley presenta su trabajo como debilitador de una “falsa ideología” que respalda valoraciones elitistas del trabajo intelectual y los trabajadores intelectuales. Sin embargo, la conexión entre los dos proyectos filosóficos de Stanley es débil. La distinción de Ryle entre saber-cómo y saber-qué no tiene las consecuencias políticas previstas por Stanley. Algunas versiones del “intelectualismo” tienen el mismo potencial para alinearse con sistemas políticos jerárquico que algunas versiones del “anti-intelectualismo”. En consecuencia, el debate en torno a las nociones de saber-cómo y saber-qué no tiene incidencia sobre la preocupación más reciente de Stanley acerca de las ideologías falsas.

Frege’s distinction between sense (Sinn) and meaning (Bedeutung) is his most influential contribution to philosophy, however central it was to his own projects, and however he may have conceived its importance. Philosophers of language influenced by, or reacting against the distinction, and historians of philosophy commenting on it, have all contributed to the voluminous literature surrounding it.1 Nonetheless in this essay I hope to shed new light on the distinction by considering it in the context of the development of Frege’s thought, and connecting it more intimately than is usually done with Frege’s interests in logic, especially his views on judgment, truth and inference, which were central to his own projects as he conceived them

This note is a friendly amendment to Marti's analysis of the failure of Føllesdal's argument that modal distinctions collapse in Carnap's logic S2. Føllesdal's argument turns on the treatment of descriptions. Marti considers how modal descriptions, which Carnap banned, might be handled; she adopts an approach which blocks Føllesdal's argument, but requires a separate treatment of non-modal descriptions. I point out that a more general treatment of descriptions in S2 is possible, and indeed is implicit in Marti's informal discussion, and that this treatment also blocks Føllesdal's argument. Further, I show by a semantic argument that no revised version of Føllesdal's argument could establish a collapse of modal distinctions