弗雷格疑難與認(rèn)知價(jià)值差異

1、湘潭大學(xué)碩士學(xué)位論文弗雷格疑難與認(rèn)知價(jià)值差異姓名：顏中軍申請(qǐng)學(xué)位級(jí)別：碩士專(zhuān)業(yè)：邏輯學(xué)指導(dǎo)教師：王向清20070508IIAbstract Gottlob Frege is a great mathematician, philosopher and logician turning point in the 19-20 century. The theory that he created a series of logic and

2、philosophy were praised classics, such as his masterpiece “On sense and reference” that was praised as a model of analytic philosophy. In this highly imaginative paper, Frege proposed the identity statements puzzle, that

3、 people still suffering, and was one of the three major problems that were intituled by Russell. It was named as Frege’s puzzle by scholars. The puzzle involved the identity relationship and the cognitive variance, but a

4、lso to the complexity of the form and content of indirect quotation context. This paper deals only with its simple form and can be expressed as: If the symbols A, B mean the same, Why is really the true two statements A=

5、B for the cognitive value greater than A=A? Frege distinguished the sense and reference of a name strictly, that was a tool for eliminating and the start of his trip. First, he opined that the identity statement expresse

6、d the sense relationship between symbols. In his view, the “identity” or “equivalent” is not meant to convey the reference relationship between symbols. Because it is very evident that, because A, B meant the same, and i

7、f the “identity” is the reference relationship between symbols, then it can’t explain the cognitive value variance between A=A and A=B. Frege pointed that, when we inspected the cognitive value of a symbol, not only to t

8、he reference but should also consider the sense. Because the sense is related to ours cognition. So he concluded: It is the different sense of symbols led to the cognitive value variance between A=A and A=B. Frege’s meth

9、od was very enlightening. He suggested a clear distinction between the sense and reference that impacted on future generations greatly, as one of the seeker of the 20th century “l(fā)inguistic turn” of philosophy. However, r

10、egardless of how creative thinking and regardless of how clever answer program of Frege, for the puzzle itself on the identity statements, he was a loser. His failure was that he overly dependent on the sense of symbols,

11、 and neglected the analysis of the “identity” itself. Based on the latest answer from both at home and abroad, we rethink the identity statements puzzle. We believe that shouldn’t paranoid on the sense of symbols, but sh

12、ould know that the crux of the problem is the “identity”. Based on in-depth analysis of the “identity”, we found that the “identity” is intensional. The traditional sense of the “identity” was only considering the refere