Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

Frege's Puzzle

Rate this book
The nature of the information content of declarative sentences is a central topic in the philosophy of language. The natural view that a sentence like "John loves Mary" contains information in which two individuals occur as constituents is termed the naive theory, and is one that has been abandoned by most contemporary scholars. This theory was refuted originally by philosopher Gottlob Frege. His argument that the naive theory did not work is termed Frege's puzzle, and his rival account of information content is termed the orthodox theory.

In this detailed study, Nathan Salmon defends a version of the naive theory and presents a proposal for its extension that provides a better picture of information content than the orthodox theory gives. He argues that a great deal of what has generally been taken for granted in the philosophy of language over the past few decades is either mistaken or unsupported, and consequently, much current research is focused on the wrong set of questions.

Salmon dissolves Frege's puzzle as it is usually formulated and demonstrates how it can be reconstructed and strengthened to yield a more powerful objection to the naive theory. He then defends the naive theory against the new Frege puzzle by presenting an idea that yields both a surprisingly rich and powerful extension of the naive theory and a better picture of information content than that of the original orthodox theory.

Nathan Salmon is Professor of Philosophy, University of California at Santa Barbara. A Bradford Book.

Paperback

First published April 14, 1986

1 person is currently reading
48 people want to read

About the author

Nathan Salmon

9 books1 follower

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
4 (28%)
4 stars
4 (28%)
3 stars
5 (35%)
2 stars
0 (0%)
1 star
1 (7%)
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Profile Image for Bryon Wilson.
4 reviews1 follower
May 31, 2011
This is a bit difficult to read at times because the subject matter can get quite technical; otherwise, this is a great investigation into philosophy of language.
Displaying 1 of 1 review

Can't find what you're looking for?

Get help and learn more about the design.