1. Frege's distinction between referent -- the thing to which a word is related to, and the sense of the word in and of itself is fascinating. It seems to be a good foundation to examine slurs and politicized language -- if I am called, say, "a butt," it's factually untrue (I consist of non-butt components.) but the sense of the word in relation to a dirty association means that it can be figuratively true.
2. When Frege writes "The referent of a proper name is the object itself which we designate
by its means; the conception, which we thereby have, is wholly
subjective," I disagreed completely. This assumes that subjectivity is independent, and that the understanding of words comes about from a single person's understanding. Yes, in exact details a conception is subjective, but the overarching associations and understandings of a concept are made by the community of people who use it, in my own understanding.
3. Why must the referent of "truth" and "falsity" be the same universally -- why not have multiple referent for different types of truth?
Alice~ I agree that applying total 'truth' and 'falsity' universally is problematic and limiting, and I wonder the same thing, 'why not have multiple referents for different types of truth.' But then I'm concerned as to how often the 'scope of truth' should be parsed out in order to accommodate all different types of truth. It seems a limit may need to exist, as an infinite number of truth referents could imply no falsity (does this even matter though?). Is this perhaps what you're implying? that false referents need not exist? If so, interesting.
ReplyDelete