Most people naively think words mean something to us because they refer to things in the world. They imagine that in our childhoods, we came to associate words with the objects to which they refer. This is to say, these people believe that at some point we saw a red ball, and heard people calling it a “red ball,” and so we learned that the word ‘red’ referred to that color, and the word ‘ball’ referred to that round object.
In response to this naive theory, Frege and Russell developed four “language puzzles.” In the video lecture, the first of these puzzles is about numeric identity. This is to say, when I say something like “Lady Gaga is Lady Gaga,” I am not revealing anything interesting or informative to you. However, when I say, “Lady Gaga is Stefani Germanotta,” I am revealing something interesting (or at least informative) to you, even though the words refer to the exact same object in the word.
In another puzzle, Frege points out that if two words refer to the exact same thing, we should be able to use the terms interchangeably; we should be able to substitute one term for another. But, when we embed the statement in claims about knowledge or belief, this doesn’t work. For example, “My neighbor knows that ‘Lady Gaga is a famous singer,’” is true. However, “My neighbor knows that ‘Stefani Germanotta is a famous singer,’” is false. If words just refer to things in the world, the equivalent statements should have identical truth conditions. I know this lecture video is lengthy, but please make sure you watch it, and take notes. The answer should be super obvious to you after watching the video.
This reading is not in our textbook. It can be located here. (Links to an external site.)
If you’re really struggling to understand the puzzles, or what philosophy of language is about, because language seems psychological to you, this thought experiment might help. (Links to an external site.)
An example of a perfect short answer submission, for the previous assignment, can be found here: The Perfect Short Answer.png
PART 1 –
In 100-400 words, explain how Frege accounts for these puzzles. Remember, philosophers of language know there is a subjective, psychological component to language, but they do not think meaning in language is purely, or even mostly, psychological or subjective. So, more specifically, what objective (outside of the mind) thing does Frege posit, and how does it account for the discrepancy these two puzzles reveal? If you think Frege is wrong, feel free to raise objections, but please be as clear as possible. The word count is so low for this assignment because I want to emphasize concision.
PART 2 –
Please answer “yes” or “no.” Brief (1-2 sentence) explanations are acceptable, but not necessary. When we complete the Mind and Language section, would you like to go slightly off-syllabus, in order to discus COVID-19, in the context of bioethics, applied ethics, and political philosophy? I feel a bit ridiculous, as a philosophy professor and an ethicist, carrying on as though this isn’t happening. Conversely, I want to give you all the class you signed up for and deserve. Make no mistake, such a shift in focus would not represent a loss of rigor. Emotions might run hot, but they cannot override logic and reasoning. Any such discussions will remain philosophic in nature. To reiterate, simply, would you personally like to involve COVID-19 in our scheduled discussions of ethics and political philosophy?
Please separate your responses into “part 1” and “part 2.”