弗雷格疑难与认知价值差异
发布时间：2018-07-21 12:57
【摘要】： 弗雷格是十九至二十世纪转折处伟大的数学家、逻辑学和哲学家。他创作的一系列论著被奉为逻辑学和哲学经典,例如他的杰作《论涵义和意谓》就被誉为分析哲学的典范。在这篇极富创意的论文中,弗雷格提出了一个至今仍然困扰人们、被罗素称为三大哲学难题之一的同一陈述疑难。它又被学者们称为弗雷格疑难。这个疑难涉及同一关系与认知差异,其复杂形式还涉及到间接引语和内涵语境。本文只论述其简单形式,一般可以表述为:如果符号A、B的意谓相同,为什么两个为真的同一陈述A=B比A=A具有更大的认知价值?弗雷格独具匠心地区分了符号的涵义与意谓,并以此作为理论工具,开始了他的解疑之旅。 首先,他认为同一陈述表述的是符号涵义之间的关系。在他看来,“同一”或“相等”不是传达符号意谓之间的关系。因为很显然,由于A、B意谓相同,如果“同一”是符号意谓之间的关系,那么不能解释A=A与A=B之间的认知差异。弗雷格指出,当我们考察一个符号的认知价值时不能仅仅考虑意谓,还应该考虑涵义。因为涵义与人们的认识有关。他总结道:正是符号的涵义不同才导致了同一陈述A=A与A=B的认知价值差异。弗雷格的解疑思路是很有启发意义的。他明确区分符号的涵义与意谓对后世影响极大,成为二十世纪哲学“语言转向”的导引之一。但是,不管弗雷格的思想多么有创意,也不论他的解答方案多么高明,就同一陈述疑难本身来说,弗雷格却是个失败者。他的失足之处,就在于过分依赖符号的涵义,而忽视了对“同一”本身的分析。 本文在借鉴国内外最新解答方案的基础上,对同一陈述疑难作了重新思考。笔者认为,不能偏执于符号的涵义,而应该认识到问题的关键在于“同一”。通过对“同一”的深入分析,发现“同一”是内涵性的,即传递了符号之间的语形或语义联系。传统意义上的“同一”只考虑其意谓或结果,是外延性的。当然这对于外延逻辑的求真是基始的和必要的。但是,当我们不仅考察一个等式的真而且还比较其认知价值时,就必须考虑符号(涵义)之间的联系。正是内涵性同一把不同符号(涵义)通过其共同的意谓联系起来,从而使同一陈述具有认知价值,并且导致了A=A与A=B在认知价值上的差异。
[Abstract]:Frege was a great mathematician, logician and philosopher at the turn of the nineteenth-twentieth century. His works are regarded as logical and philosophical classics, such as his masterpiece, on meaning and meaning, which is regarded as the model of analytical philosophy. In this creative paper, Frege presents the same statement that still puzzles people and is called one of the three philosophical dilemmas by Russell. It is also referred to by scholars as Frege puzzles. This problem involves the same relation and cognitive difference, and its complicated form also involves indirect quotation and connotative context. This paper deals only with its simple form, which can generally be expressed as: if the symbol Anb has the same meaning, why is it that the two statements are true and the same statement has more cognitive value than ANAA? Frege distinguishes the meaning and meaning of symbol with originality, and takes it as a theoretical tool to begin his journey of resolving doubt. First of all, he thinks that the same statement represents the relationship between symbolic meanings. In his view, "identity" or "equality" is not the relationship between symbols. Because it is obvious that because of the same meaning, if "same" is the relationship between symbolic meanings, then the cognitive difference between ANAA and AHB can not be explained. Frege points out that when we examine the cognitive value of a symbol, we should not only consider the meaning, but also the meaning. Because the meaning is related to people's understanding. He concluded: it is the different meanings of symbols that lead to the difference in cognitive value between ANAA and AHB. Frege's idea of solving doubt is very enlightening. He clearly distinguishes the meaning and meaning of symbols, which has great influence on later generations and has become one of the guide of "linguistic turn" of philosophy in the 20th century. But no matter how creative Frege's ideas are, and no matter how clever his solution is, Frege is a loser in terms of the very nature of the same statement. His mistake lies in relying too much on the meaning of symbols and neglecting the analysis of "identity" itself. Based on the latest solutions at home and abroad, this paper reconsiders the difficulties of the same statement. In my opinion, we should not be paranoid in the meaning of symbols, but should realize that the crux of the problem lies in "identity". Through the deep analysis of "identity", it is found that "identity" is connotative, that is, it conveys the morphological or semantic relation between symbols. Traditional sense of "identity" only considers its meaning or result, it is extraductive. Of course, this for the extension of logic is the first and necessary. However, when we not only examine the truth of an equation but also compare its cognitive value, we must consider the relationship between symbols. It is the connotative identity that connects different symbols (meanings) through their common meanings, which makes the same statement have cognitive value and leads to the difference of cognitive value between ANAA and ANAB.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：B81-05
本文编号：2135598
[Abstract]:Frege was a great mathematician, logician and philosopher at the turn of the nineteenth-twentieth century. His works are regarded as logical and philosophical classics, such as his masterpiece, on meaning and meaning, which is regarded as the model of analytical philosophy. In this creative paper, Frege presents the same statement that still puzzles people and is called one of the three philosophical dilemmas by Russell. It is also referred to by scholars as Frege puzzles. This problem involves the same relation and cognitive difference, and its complicated form also involves indirect quotation and connotative context. This paper deals only with its simple form, which can generally be expressed as: if the symbol Anb has the same meaning, why is it that the two statements are true and the same statement has more cognitive value than ANAA? Frege distinguishes the meaning and meaning of symbol with originality, and takes it as a theoretical tool to begin his journey of resolving doubt. First of all, he thinks that the same statement represents the relationship between symbolic meanings. In his view, "identity" or "equality" is not the relationship between symbols. Because it is obvious that because of the same meaning, if "same" is the relationship between symbolic meanings, then the cognitive difference between ANAA and AHB can not be explained. Frege points out that when we examine the cognitive value of a symbol, we should not only consider the meaning, but also the meaning. Because the meaning is related to people's understanding. He concluded: it is the different meanings of symbols that lead to the difference in cognitive value between ANAA and AHB. Frege's idea of solving doubt is very enlightening. He clearly distinguishes the meaning and meaning of symbols, which has great influence on later generations and has become one of the guide of "linguistic turn" of philosophy in the 20th century. But no matter how creative Frege's ideas are, and no matter how clever his solution is, Frege is a loser in terms of the very nature of the same statement. His mistake lies in relying too much on the meaning of symbols and neglecting the analysis of "identity" itself. Based on the latest solutions at home and abroad, this paper reconsiders the difficulties of the same statement. In my opinion, we should not be paranoid in the meaning of symbols, but should realize that the crux of the problem lies in "identity". Through the deep analysis of "identity", it is found that "identity" is connotative, that is, it conveys the morphological or semantic relation between symbols. Traditional sense of "identity" only considers its meaning or result, it is extraductive. Of course, this for the extension of logic is the first and necessary. However, when we not only examine the truth of an equation but also compare its cognitive value, we must consider the relationship between symbols. It is the connotative identity that connects different symbols (meanings) through their common meanings, which makes the same statement have cognitive value and leads to the difference of cognitive value between ANAA and ANAB.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：B81-05
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 余俊伟;试论弗雷格的指称理论[J];北京化工大学学报(社会科学版);2002年03期
2 徐明明;论弗雷格的语境原则[J];广东社会科学;1994年04期
3 王路;国外弗雷格研究概述[J];国外社会科学;1995年09期
4 陈晓平;关于弗雷格的语境分析的评析[J];广西大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2000年01期
5 陈晓平;句子的指称与谓词的定义域——对弗雷格意义理论的一些改进[J];广西大学学报(哲学社会科学版);1998年02期
6 王晓萍;二十世纪表达式指称研究的发展[J];广州大学学报(社会科学版);2004年08期
7 张燕京;弗雷格逻辑哲学思想评析[J];河北大学学报(哲学社会科学版);1996年02期
8 倪荫林;弗雷格概念论探微[J];石家庄经济学院学报;2000年05期
9 晓河;作为科学话语研究对象的“涵义”与“意义”[J];河北学刊;2002年04期
10 贺寿南,潘天群;弗雷格的逻辑观评析[J];华南师范大学学报(社会科学版);2002年05期
，本文编号：2135598
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/shekelunwen/ljx/2135598.html
