scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1017030
The paper endorses the claim that the meaning of a name is the object it denotes. It would appear to follow from this that (a) \({\mathbf h}={\mathbf h}\) and (2) \({\mathbf h}={\mathbf p}\), where \({\mathbf h}\) is Hesperus and \({\mathbf p}\) is Phosphorus, mean the same thing, which they appear not to (Frege's puzzle). The paper rejects this conclusion by rejecting the Fregean principle that the meaning of a whole is a function of the meaning of its parts. No attempt is made to explain how a theory of meaning might work if one rejects this apparently fundamental principle of compositionality. A more urgent problem is that Frege's puzzle appears to recur, according to the theory the paper proposes. Drawing on a theory of complexes, according to which an object, \({\mathbf x}\), is a complex with certain components, \(x\) and \(X\), and a certain analysis of identity, the paper analyses (1) and (2), respectively, as of the form: \[ \exists{\mathbf z}({\mathbf z} cont h \& {\mathbf z} emb H)\tag{1}{\('\)} \] \[ \exists{\mathbf z}({\mathbf z} cont h \& {\mathbf z} cont p \& {\mathbf z} emb H \& {\mathbf z} emb P)\tag{2}{\('\)} \] But \((1')\) is trivially equivalent to: \[ \exists{\mathbf z}({\mathbf z} cont h \& {\mathbf z} cont h \&{\mathbf z} emb H\& {\mathbf z} emb H)\tag{3}{\('\)} \] and according to the theory, if \({\mathbf h}={\mathbf p}\) then \(h= p\) and \(H= P\). But \((2')\) and \((3')\) are the same except for the substituion of coreferential terms, yet they appear not to mean the same.
This page was built for publication:
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q4339097)
