{"id":194,"date":"2018-09-09T17:39:58","date_gmt":"2018-09-09T17:39:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/?p=194"},"modified":"2020-10-06T08:53:13","modified_gmt":"2020-10-06T08:53:13","slug":"a-quasi-fregean-solution-to-the-concept-horse-paradox-by-mihail-petrisor-ivan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/a-quasi-fregean-solution-to-the-concept-horse-paradox-by-mihail-petrisor-ivan\/","title":{"rendered":"A Quasi-fregean Solution to \u2018The Concept Horse\u2019 Paradox by MIHAIL-PETRI\u015eOR IVAN"},"content":{"rendered":"1 Ivan Mihai<\/a>\n

Download PDF<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Abstract.<\/strong> In this paper I offer a conceptually tighter, quasi-Fregean solution to the
\nconcept horse paradox based on the idea that the unterfallen relation is
\nasymmetrical. The solution is conceptually tighter in the sense that it retains the
\nFregean principle of separating sharply between concepts and objects, it retains
\nFrege\u2019s conclusion that the sentence \u2018the concept horse is not a concept\u2019 is true,
\nbut does not violate our intuitions on the matter. The solution is only \u2018quasi\u2019-
\nFregean in the sense that it rejects Frege\u2019s claims about the ontological import of
\nnatural language and his analysis thereof.<\/p>\n

Keywords:<\/strong> concept, object, unterfallen, history of analytic philosophy.<\/p>\n

REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n

Davidson, D. (1974). Thought and Talk. Reprinted in Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (1984), Oxford University Press.
\nFine, K. (2007). Semantic Relationism. Blackwell Publishing.
\nFisk, M. (1968). A Paradox in Frege’s Semantics. In E.D. Klemke
\n(ed.), Essays on Frege, University of Illinois Press.
\nFrege, G. (1960). Translation from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob
\nFrege. Edited by Peter Geach and Max Black, Basil Blackwell.
\nFrege, G. (1953). The Foundations of Arithmetic. Translated by J.L.
\nAustin, Basil Blackwell;
\nFrege, G. (1967). Concept Script. Translated by Stefan Bauer-Mengelberg,
\nin Jean Van Heijenoort, ed., From Frege to G\u00f6del: A Source Book
\nin Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931, Harvard University Press.
\nParsons, T. (1986). Why Frege should not have said \u2018The concept
\nhorse is not a concept\u2019. History of Philosophy Quarterly,
\n3 (4):449\u2013 465.
\nSlater, H. (2000). Concept and Object in Frege. Online version at
\nhttp:\/\/www.minerva.mic.ul.ie\/\/vol4\/frege.html.
\nWright, C. (1983). Frege’s Conception of Numbers as Objects. Aberdeen
\nUniversity Press.
\nWells, R.S. (1951). Frege’s Ontology. Review of Metaphysics
\n4 (4):537\u2013573.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Download PDF Abstract. In this paper I offer a conceptually tighter, quasi-Fregean solution to the concept horse paradox based on the idea that the unterfallen relation is asymmetrical. The solution is conceptually tighter in the sense that it retains the Fregean principle of separating sharply between concepts and objects, it retains Frege\u2019s conclusion that the… <\/p>\n

Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[70],"tags":[71,74,72,73],"class_list":["post-194","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-mihail-petrisor-ivan","tag-concept","tag-history-of-analytic-philosophy","tag-object","tag-unterfallen","xfolkentry","clearfix"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=194"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":301,"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194\/revisions\/301"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}