Skip to main content

ahlect033

<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">

<TEI.2><teiHeader>

<fileDesc>

<titleStmt>

<title>Frege</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>

<idno>ahlct033</idno>

<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any

way</p>

<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>

</publicationStmt>

<sourceDesc>

<recordingStmt>

<recording dur="00:41:10" n="6145">

<date>01/02/2001</date><equipment><p>audio</p></equipment>

<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>

</respStmt></recording></recordingStmt></sourceDesc></fileDesc>

<profileDesc>

<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>

<language id="de">German</language>

<language id="la">Latin</language>

</langUsage>

<particDesc>

<person id="nf0098" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="f"><p>nf0098, main speaker, non-student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0099" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0099, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0100" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0100, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0101" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0101, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0102" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0102, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0103" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0103, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0104" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0104, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0105" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0105, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0106" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0106, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0107" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0107, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0108" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0108, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0109" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0109, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0110" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0110, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf0111" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0111, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0112" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0112, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0113" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0113, participant, student, male</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="s"><p>ss, audience, small group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="s"><p>sl, all, small group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="18"><p>number of speakers: 18</p></personGrp>

</particDesc>

<textClass>

<keywords>

<list>

<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">Philosophy</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ah</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG3</item>

<item n="module">Philosophy of language</item>

</list></keywords>

</textClass>

</profileDesc></teiHeader><text><body>

<u who="nf0098"> # <pause dur="0.8"/> where are you going </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="sf0099" trans="pause"> Cornwall </u><u who="nf0098" trans="latching"> oh that can't be any better than the Philosophy weekend </u><u who="sf0099" trans="overlap"> well no but it's paid for <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> i might come for the day on Friday <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> yeah good plan <pause dur="1.5"/> okay then anyway perhaps we should get started <pause dur="1.5"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> we're looking at proper names <pause dur="0.2"/> at the moment <pause dur="1.0"/> right remember from last week <pause dur="0.4"/> and we started off last week by looking at a Millian <pause dur="0.2"/> theory of proper names <pause dur="0.8"/> anyone want to remind me <pause dur="0.2"/> what a Millian theory of proper names is without looking <pause dur="0.2"/> at <pause dur="0.3"/> your handout <pause dur="0.2"/> 'cause that would make me really depressed if you can't remember what a Millian theory of names is without looking at your handout <pause dur="0.5"/> <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> </u><u who="sm0100" trans="overlap"> that they are are labels </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0098" trans="pause"> they're labels <pause dur="0.2"/> exactly right so what's the meaning of a proper name for Mill </u><pause dur="1.1"/> <u who="sm0101" trans="pause"> the # hook <unclear>they</unclear> <trunc>cos</trunc> <unclear>they correspond</unclear> to in the # world </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0098" trans="pause"> yeah exactly the object that it hooks up with in the world <pause dur="0.5"/> so for Mill <pause dur="0.2"/> the answer to what is the meaning of a proper name is very very simple it's just the object <pause dur="0.2"/> in the world <pause dur="0.2"/> that

it hooks up with <pause dur="1.1"/> and we finished off last week by looking at three <pause dur="0.3"/> worries <pause dur="0.2"/> with that kind of <pause dur="0.4"/> Millian theory of names <pause dur="0.6"/> anyone want to remind me <pause dur="0.9"/> what the problems were </u><pause dur="3.5"/> <u who="sm0100" trans="pause"> i don't know fake names like <pause dur="0.5"/> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nf0098" trans="pause"> exactly right <pause dur="0.2"/> not <pause dur="0.4"/> tend to call them empty names </u><u who="sm0100" trans="overlap"> empty names </u><u who="nf0098" trans="pause"> names that don't have anything relating to them in the world exactly right <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <pause dur="0.7"/> problem with empty names <pause dur="3.6"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> # there was a problem with <pause dur="0.6"/> how we decide on the <pause dur="0.4"/> denotation remember <pause dur="0.2"/> the Millian difference between denotation and connotation <pause dur="0.4"/> denotation being the object in the world <pause dur="0.4"/> connotation being a kind of a property <pause dur="0.6"/> # and if we think that names are things which just have denotation and don't have connotation <pause dur="0.4"/> we've got a trouble <pause dur="0.5"/> on <pause dur="0.9"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="11"/> settling or determining <pause dur="1.0"/> the referent <pause dur="2.8"/> how do we find out what thing it is in the world that the name is supposed to hook up with anyway <pause dur="0.9"/> and one more problem <pause dur="0.4"/> anyone remind me of a last problem </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="sm0102" trans="pause"> the Hesperus and Phosphorus <pause dur="0.2"/> problem </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> Hesperus and Phosphorus exactly right there's a

problem <pause dur="1.0"/> with what i called cognitive difference <pause dur="4.0"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> okay <pause dur="1.2"/> and that was the worry about <pause dur="0.5"/> think if <pause dur="0.2"/> all there is to the meaning of a name is <pause dur="0.2"/> just the thing in the world that it hooks up with <pause dur="0.4"/> how do we explain the fact that sometimes <vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> # you can not realize that fact <pause dur="1.0"/> sometimes you can think things like <pause dur="0.3"/> Hesperus is not Phosphorus <pause dur="0.8"/> even though in fact those two names pick out exactly the same object in the world <pause dur="1.7"/> okay and it's this problem <pause dur="0.2"/> the problem of so-called cognitive difference <pause dur="0.3"/> that we're going to concentrate on <pause dur="0.3"/> for the next sort of week and a half <pause dur="0.8"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/> and we're going to concentrate on it because <pause dur="1.8"/> this <pause dur="0.2"/> kind of problem <pause dur="0.4"/> was first brought to the fore <pause dur="0.2"/> and made most of by <pause dur="0.4"/> Frege <pause dur="0.8"/> so we're going to see <pause dur="0.3"/> how Frege <pause dur="0.2"/> established this problem <pause dur="0.5"/> and what sort of theory <pause dur="0.2"/> it led him <pause dur="0.3"/> to develop for names <pause dur="0.2"/> it's going to be a non-Millian theory of names that Frege developed <pause dur="0.3"/> in response <pause dur="0.3"/> to this kind of worry <pause dur="1.9"/> okay then so what exactly is the problem <pause dur="0.2"/> of cognitive difference

then what is the worry <pause dur="0.2"/> here <pause dur="1.1"/> well i've said on the handout <pause dur="1.0"/> some sentences which state sameness of referent <pause dur="0.3"/> like <pause dur="0.2"/> Cicero is Cicero <pause dur="0.4"/> or the first postmaster general was the first postmaster general <pause dur="0.4"/> seem very uninformative <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> you know if i stand up here and lecture to you and tell you <pause dur="0.4"/> hey Cicero was Cicero <pause dur="0.8"/> you're going to think you're being <pause dur="0.3"/> sold short <pause dur="0.2"/> you know that's not particularly informative or useful thing <pause dur="0.6"/> # for a university education to equip you with <pause dur="0.4"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> on the other hand <pause dur="0.4"/> if i stand up here and tell you <pause dur="0.8"/> Cicero <pause dur="0.2"/> was Tully <pause dur="1.0"/> or <pause dur="0.4"/> the first postmaster general <pause dur="0.4"/> was <pause dur="0.2"/> the inventor of bifocals <pause dur="0.6"/> or even <pause dur="0.3"/> Abraham Lincoln <pause dur="0.5"/> was the first postmaster general <pause dur="0.4"/> or <pause dur="0.3"/> the first <pause dur="0.2"/> # the inventor of bifocals <pause dur="0.5"/> you've learned something useful <pause dur="0.6"/> right <pause dur="1.9"/> fairly useful anyway <pause dur="0.2"/> seems like taxpayers' money is not going to waste here you've learned something <pause dur="0.4"/> got a useful fact to take away with you <pause dur="0.3"/> but how can the Millian explain something like that <pause dur="2.6"/> because according to the Millian <pause dur="0.2"/> the meaning of the name is

entirely given by its referent <event desc="student enters room" iterated="n" n="sm0103"/> hello <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <pause dur="1.1"/> recovered from your hangover leaving the union at two o'clock in the morning <vocal desc="laughter" n="sl" iterated="y" dur="1"/> </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="sm0103" trans="pause"> yes </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nf0098" trans="pause"> yes <vocal desc="laughter" n="ss" iterated="y" dur="1"/> very good and it's only taken you till two o'clock the next day that's fantastic <vocal desc="laughter" n="sl" iterated="y" dur="1"/> <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> so if the Millian is going to tell you <pause dur="0.3"/> that the meaning of the name <pause dur="0.6"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="n"/> oh <pause dur="1.0"/> can't believe it i got a new pen the other day and it's run out already <pause dur="1.0"/> # the meaning of the name <pause dur="0.5"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="21"/> Cicero <pause dur="0.2"/> is just given <pause dur="5.6"/> by your little <pause dur="0.9"/> Greek orator <pause dur="1.2"/> there he is <pause dur="0.5"/> meaning of the name Cicero given by your Greek orator <pause dur="1.0"/> how does he <pause dur="0.2"/> explain the fact <pause dur="0.7"/> that it can be useful then to learn <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> that Cicero <pause dur="0.9"/> is Tully <pause dur="2.2"/> because if the meaning of those two names is entirely given <pause dur="0.5"/> by the object they pick out in the world <pause dur="0.4"/> then <pause dur="0.4"/> you know how is one any more informative <pause dur="0.2"/> than the other <pause dur="0.5"/> how would Cicero is Tully <pause dur="0.2"/> be any more informative <pause dur="0.2"/> than Cicero is Cicero <pause dur="4.2"/> okay <pause dur="2.7"/> so i say on the handout <reading>this difference would seem inexplicable if all there was

to the meaning of a name is the object <pause dur="0.2"/> it refers to</reading> <pause dur="1.0"/> and i say <reading>this is sometimes known as Frege's problem <pause dur="0.3"/> or the problem of cognitive difference</reading> <pause dur="1.4"/> well we might perhaps note here that i'm being just <pause dur="0.2"/> slightly <pause dur="0.2"/> disingenuous <pause dur="0.3"/> i guess <pause dur="0.6"/> because i'm saying the problem as if there's a single kind of problem we can identify here <pause dur="0.4"/> when actually it's more like a kind of bundle <pause dur="0.2"/> of worries <pause dur="0.6"/> because if you read any of the literature here you'll find that this problem is sometimes stated in slightly different ways <pause dur="1.1"/> okay so i've said that it's <pause dur="0.5"/> you know what we're going to call Frege's problem <pause dur="0.3"/> is the difference between <pause dur="0.2"/> identity statements <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="3"/> of the form A-equals-A <pause dur="1.0"/> and identity statements of the form A-equals-B <pause dur="1.0"/> and that's one way of stating the problem <pause dur="1.4"/> but in other areas you might find the problem stated as # <pause dur="1.1"/> see <pause dur="1.9"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> the fact that it might be rational for someone to believe <pause dur="6.2"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> okay <pause dur="1.6"/> say that the object <pause dur="0.3"/> named by the label A <pause dur="0.2"/> is the object <pause dur="0.2"/> named by the label B <pause dur="1.6"/> would it be

rational <pause dur="0.3"/> could it be rational to believe that A is not B <pause dur="2.9"/> yes <pause dur="0.3"/> even after <pause dur="0.2"/> nineteen pints <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> can see that <vocal desc="laughter" n="ss" iterated="y" dur="1"/> it would be rational to believe that kind of thing <pause dur="0.7"/> would it be rational to believe that A is not A <pause dur="3.0"/> do you think <pause dur="0.6"/> no very good <pause dur="0.4"/> wouldn't be rational doesn't seem <pause dur="0.2"/> to matter how confused you are about your environment <pause dur="0.8"/> it never seems to be rational to believe <pause dur="1.4"/> something of this form <pause dur="0.2"/> that an identity sign <pause dur="0.5"/> using the same label on both sides for the same object <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> that those two objects are non-identical <pause dur="0.6"/> so sometimes Frege's problem <pause dur="0.3"/> is stated as the fact that it would be irrational <pause dur="0.3"/> to believe <pause dur="0.2"/> something in form A is A <pause dur="0.3"/> A is not A <pause dur="0.4"/> but irrational to believe something in form A is not B <pause dur="1.9"/> sorry did i give that the wrong way round <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/> </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="sf0104" trans="pause"> we understood </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> other way round you know what i'm saying <pause dur="1.9"/> # and a third way that you might find <pause dur="0.4"/> this problem stated <pause dur="0.2"/> is to do with <pause dur="1.5"/> exchange in certain contexts <pause dur="1.6"/> okay <pause dur="0.4"/> so in certain contexts it looks as if you can always exchange <pause dur="0.5"/> coreferential terms <pause dur="0.4"/>

what's called <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="la">salva veritate</distinct> <pause dur="0.8"/> get all classical on you there <pause dur="1.3"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> did we do this last term did we do the term <distinct lang="la">salva veritate</distinct> </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="sm0105" trans="pause"> # </u><pause dur="0.8"/> <u who="sf0106" trans="pause"> # <pause dur="0.3"/> it was mentioned </u><pause dur="1.1"/> <u who="nf0098" trans="pause"> that was a quick statement for no <vocal desc="laughter" n="sl" iterated="y" dur="1"/> no certainly didn't do that what the hell is it <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> <distinct lang="la">salve veritate</distinct> means exchange <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="1.7"/> without alteration in truth value <pause dur="2.0"/> if you can exchange something <distinct lang="la">salva veritate</distinct> that means that you can exchange two things without <pause dur="0.2"/> altering the truth <pause dur="0.5"/> value <pause dur="0.3"/> of the sentence in which they occur <pause dur="2.3"/> so do you remember all the stuff you did in <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> logic in the second year <pause dur="0.7"/> you did stuff about truth functional connectives like and <pause dur="1.5"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="7"/> and or <pause dur="0.8"/> and not <pause dur="2.2"/> things of that form you can <pause dur="0.2"/> always exchange coreferring terms <distinct lang="la">salva veritate</distinct> <pause dur="0.5"/> if you've got a sentence <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="12"/> like <pause dur="1.9"/> Cicero <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="3.7"/> went to the market <vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="3.0"/> or <pause dur="0.6"/> i don't know <pause dur="0.4"/> # <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> Cicero went to the market or Caesar did <pause dur="1.6"/> you can <pause dur="0.2"/> always exchange coreferential terms in this kind of context without altering the

truth value <pause dur="0.6"/> if this whole sentence is true <pause dur="0.7"/> then the sentence <pause dur="2.6"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="2"/> Tully went to the market or Caesar did <pause dur="0.2"/> has to be true as well <pause dur="0.6"/> if Cicero is Tully <pause dur="2.3"/> yeah <pause dur="1.1"/> 'cause these guys <pause dur="0.5"/> like or <pause dur="0.4"/> that's truth functional all they worry about is the truth value <pause dur="0.5"/> of the sentences they're connecting <pause dur="0.2"/> and if it's true that Cicero went to the market then it has to be true that Tully went to the market <pause dur="0.3"/> if Cicero is Tully <pause dur="1.2"/> so in some contexts then you're guaranteed to be able to exchange coreferring terms <distinct lang="la">salva veritate</distinct> <pause dur="0.9"/> but in some contexts <pause dur="0.7"/> you're not <pause dur="1.4"/> anyone <pause dur="0.5"/> think of a context in which <pause dur="1.1"/> you might not be able to do that </u><pause dur="2.5"/> <u who="sf0107" trans="pause"> John believes that Cicero <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> yeah classic example <pause dur="1.9"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="16"/> if you've got something like John believes <pause dur="1.8"/> that <pause dur="1.4"/> Cicero went to the market <pause dur="7.0"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="3.6"/> something like this <pause dur="0.2"/> a so-called intentional context <pause dur="0.7"/> using a term like believes or hopes or desires <pause dur="0.4"/> a term picking out a mental <pause dur="0.4"/> state <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> a propositional attitude <pause dur="2.0"/> in contexts like these <pause dur="0.2"/> you pretty obviously can't go around exchanging

coreferential terms <pause dur="0.3"/> <distinct lang="la">salva veritate</distinct> <pause dur="0.9"/> John believes that Cicero went to the market <pause dur="0.2"/> so this whole sentence is true <pause dur="1.8"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="9"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> this whole thing is true <pause dur="1.0"/> am i guaranteed <pause dur="2.3"/> that the sentence John believes that Tully <pause dur="0.3"/> went to the market <pause dur="0.4"/> is also true </u><pause dur="6.6"/> <u who="sm0108" trans="pause"> no </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nf0098" trans="pause"> no <pause dur="0.3"/> exactly right <pause dur="0.2"/> not guaranteed that at all <pause dur="0.4"/> John could easily believe that Cicero went to the market and disbelieve <pause dur="0.5"/> that Tully went to the market <pause dur="0.2"/> precisely if he doesn't know <pause dur="0.3"/> that Cicero is Tully <pause dur="2.6"/> so in contexts like these <pause dur="0.5"/> believes contexts hopes contexts desires contexts things like that <pause dur="0.8"/> it doesn't look as if we can exchange coreferring terms <pause dur="0.4"/> <distinct lang="la">salva veritate</distinct> <pause dur="0.6"/> we can change the truth value of the whole sentence <pause dur="0.4"/> by swapping <pause dur="0.7"/> two terms <pause dur="0.3"/> which pick out the same object <pause dur="2.3"/> so this is another way that you'll find <pause dur="0.3"/> Frege's <pause dur="0.9"/> point made Frege's argument made <pause dur="0.5"/> because obviously there would be nothing to explain <pause dur="0.8"/> this difference <pause dur="0.8"/> in <pause dur="0.9"/> the kind of context where you can exchange <pause dur="0.3"/> coreferring terms <pause dur="0.3"/> if all there is to

the meaning <pause dur="0.5"/> of a proper name <pause dur="0.4"/> is its referent <pause dur="2.6"/> the meaning of Cicero is completely exhausted <pause dur="2.9"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="2"/> by <pause dur="0.3"/> our Roman orator <pause dur="3.9"/> how are we going to explain the fact that you can <trunc>expla</trunc> you can exchange <pause dur="0.4"/> the terms Cicero and Tully in this context <pause dur="0.3"/> but you can't exchange them <pause dur="0.2"/> in this context <pause dur="3.1"/>

it looks as if you're going to have to <pause dur="1.9"/> introduce some <pause dur="0.2"/> other element into the meaning of the name <pause dur="0.5"/> to explain <pause dur="0.3"/> this variation <pause dur="2.3"/> okay do people see that <pause dur="0.8"/> <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <pause dur="0.7"/> mm <pause dur="1.0"/> vaguely <pause dur="0.7"/> <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> you're looking kind of dazed <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/> <pause dur="0.4"/> is that just because it's </u><u who="sm0100" trans="overlap"> that's just me usually </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> week three of term just the usual okay okay cool <pause dur="1.5"/> right so those are three different ways that we might find Frege's <pause dur="0.4"/> problem stated there's the idea of informative identity statements that it's better to learn something of the form A-equals-B than it is to learn something of the form A-equals-A <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> there's the fact that it's sometimes irrational to believe something of the form <pause dur="0.7"/> A-does-not-equal-A <pause dur="0.2"/> even though it's rational to believe that A-does-not-equal-B <pause dur="0.7"/> and we've got the fact that in some contexts you can exchange two coreferential terms you can exchange A and B <pause dur="0.3"/> but in other contexts <pause dur="0.3"/> it looks like you can't <pause dur="1.3"/> so this this whole kind of cluster of worries <pause dur="0.7"/> that often get referred to as Frege's problem <pause dur="0.7"/> or as the

problem of cognitive difference <pause dur="8.1"/> so that's a whole kind of cluster of worries <pause dur="0.9"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> i put it to you <pause dur="0.6"/> if we're going to be driven from our nice simple intuitive <pause dur="0.2"/> clear <pause dur="0.5"/> # Millian position on names <pause dur="0.3"/> we want more than just a kind of cluster of <pause dur="0.4"/> you know <pause dur="0.2"/> general slight worries about what's going on here <pause dur="0.4"/> we want an argument <pause dur="0.4"/> goddamn it we're philosophers we want a nice clear argument that shows us why we can't be Millians given all these <pause dur="0.2"/> states of affairs <pause dur="1.6"/> and actually <pause dur="0.2"/> i think it's harder <pause dur="0.3"/> to get an argument <pause dur="1.0"/> in this case <pause dur="0.2"/> than we might initially expect <pause dur="1.4"/> devil's in the detail like it always is you know <pause dur="1.0"/> so how might we formalize the kind of argument that's going on <pause dur="0.2"/> in cases like the ones we just looked at <pause dur="1.1"/> well i've given you <pause dur="0.2"/> a kind of example on the handout <pause dur="0.3"/> or <pause dur="0.3"/> a way we might try it on the handout <pause dur="1.2"/> we start off <pause dur="0.2"/> with a piece of data <pause dur="0.4"/> right <pause dur="1.4"/> the data is say that <trunc>senten</trunc> the sentence <pause dur="0.2"/> Hesperus is cold <pause dur="0.4"/> and the sentence Phosphorus in cold <pause dur="0.5"/> is cold <pause dur="0.2"/> differ in cognitive value <pause dur="0.6"/> because a rational

agent can know both and assent to one <pause dur="0.2"/> while dissenting <pause dur="0.3"/> to the other <pause dur="1.8"/> so there's a piece of data <pause dur="0.2"/> for you <pause dur="1.1"/> and that seems <pause dur="0.4"/> # incontrovertible right that's just <pause dur="0.7"/> clearly right <pause dur="2.5"/> now secondly <pause dur="1.0"/> if that's our premise so if that's our piece of data we need some kind <pause dur="0.2"/> of second <pause dur="0.2"/> premise <pause dur="0.4"/> connecting <pause dur="0.4"/> the objects of knowledge <pause dur="0.2"/> and the expressions of our language <pause dur="0.7"/> because look <pause dur="0.6"/> what premise one tells us <pause dur="0.7"/> is that an agent can know both of these things <pause dur="0.5"/> and can assent to one and dissent to the other <pause dur="0.5"/> the first premise is one about epistemology <pause dur="0.2"/> right <pause dur="0.4"/> it's one about what people know <pause dur="0.9"/> but what we're trying to get at is a conclusion about <pause dur="0.5"/> the meaning of linguistic items <pause dur="1.9"/> so we need a premise connecting <pause dur="0.4"/> the things that people know about bits of language to the meaning <pause dur="0.2"/> of bits of language <pause dur="2.0"/> and we could just do that in some very general way by saying there is some kind of connection between the objects of knowledge and expressions in the language <pause dur="2.0"/> now if we can establish that if we can establish that

there is this connection then we do seem able to draw a conclusion that <pause dur="0.6"/> Hesperus <pause dur="0.2"/> the term Hesperus and the term Phosphorus <pause dur="0.5"/> differ <pause dur="0.4"/> in something other than <pause dur="0.3"/> and i've put in here <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="de">bedeutung</distinct> <pause dur="1.0"/> that's the German phrase <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> Frege uses <pause dur="0.3"/> sometimes translated as reference <pause dur="0.7"/> sometimes as <distinct lang="la">nominatum</distinct> <pause dur="0.6"/> sometimes as designation i'll almost always say reference but <pause dur="0.4"/> you should just be aware that that's <pause dur="0.9"/> # an issue about exactly how that term should be translated <pause dur="1.9"/> okay we can obviously get that conclusion because if you've got the two sentences Hesperus is cold and Phosphorus is cold <pause dur="0.4"/> the only bit they differ in <pause dur="0.5"/> is <pause dur="0.3"/> the names they contain <pause dur="1.2"/> yeah <pause dur="0.6"/> so we can trace <pause dur="0.4"/> if there is going to be a difference <pause dur="0.8"/> # between the meaning of those two whole sentences <pause dur="0.3"/> we know it's got to come <pause dur="0.3"/> in the meaning of those two <pause dur="0.3"/> bits of sentences <pause dur="1.1"/> so we do get the conclusion that Hesperus and Phosphorus differ in something other than reference <pause dur="1.4"/> that would seem to be a good conclusion 'cause that's what Frege wants to conclude

because he's going to say that the meaning of name isn't just <pause dur="0.5"/> its reference <pause dur="2.8"/> but <pause dur="0.7"/> i think you should know that as it stands <pause dur="0.2"/> the conclusion in three <pause dur="0.2"/> isn't particularly interesting <pause dur="0.6"/> oops <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/><pause dur="0.4"/> you can't get that back now either 'cause that's stuck in the middle <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/><pause dur="0.5"/> going to have to go under the table Andrew <pause dur="2.6"/> very good <pause dur="1.0"/> okay so the conclusion in three isn't an interesting conclusion <pause dur="1.0"/> why not <pause dur="0.7"/> why isn't it interesting to be <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="20"/> told that <pause dur="1.7"/> Hesperus and <pause dur="0.4"/> Phosphorus <pause dur="4.8"/> differ in something other than reference <pause dur="9.9"/> well the answer is <pause dur="0.3"/> clearly <pause dur="0.2"/> why it's not interesting to be told that Hesperus and Phosphorus differ in something other than reference <pause dur="0.5"/> it's 'cause that they clearly <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>differ in something <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="1.5"/> they're not the same thing are they <pause dur="0.6"/> this isn't like saying Hesperus and Hesperus differ in something other than reference <pause dur="0.6"/> these are two different syntactic items <pause dur="1.6"/> they've got different orthographic properties

they've got different phonetic properties <pause dur="0.4"/> they've got different properties about occasions of use <pause dur="1.5"/> there are lots of different properties that these have <pause dur="1.5"/> regardless of the fact <pause dur="0.2"/> that they don't differ in reference <pause dur="2.2"/> so what Frege needs to make this conclusion of his argument an interesting conclusion <pause dur="0.5"/> is not the claim just that they differ in something other than reference <pause dur="0.5"/> but that they differ <pause dur="1.0"/> in meaning <pause dur="5.4"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> that's the interesting conclusion <pause dur="1.3"/> that Hesperus and Phosphorus differ in meaning <pause dur="1.9"/> because if that's the case <pause dur="0.3"/> then we know that meaning can't just be reference <pause dur="0.8"/> it can't be the Millian position <pause dur="0.6"/> because we know that Hesperus and Phosphorus <pause dur="0.5"/> both pick out <pause dur="1.9"/> Venus <pause dur="1.7"/> yet again this week looks a bit like Mercury <pause dur="0.2"/> but anyway <pause dur="1.3"/> we know they both have the same reference <pause dur="0.3"/> if we know that they both have the same reference <pause dur="0.5"/> # but yet they differ in meaning <pause dur="0.2"/> then we know that meaning and reference aren't synonymous <pause dur="0.4"/> aren't the same thing <pause dur="2.3"/> so that's

the conclusion that Frege needs to get <pause dur="0.8"/> whoops <pause dur="0.9"/> he needs to get <pause dur="0.2"/> that Hesperus <pause dur="0.3"/> and Phosphorus <pause dur="0.2"/> differ in meaning <pause dur="1.9"/> and that's a claim <pause dur="0.3"/> that's been <pause dur="0.2"/> disputed <pause dur="0.2"/> by some people <pause dur="1.6"/> some philosophers want to accept <pause dur="0.4"/> the initial <pause dur="1.4"/> kind of uninteresting claim that i put up to begin with that Hesper and <pause dur="0.2"/> Hesperus and Phosphorus differ in something other than reference <pause dur="0.4"/> and yet not accept <pause dur="0.2"/> that they differ <pause dur="0.8"/> in <pause dur="0.4"/> meaning <pause dur="0.7"/> I-E not accept that there is a semantic level difference between these two guys <pause dur="2.3"/> how might you do that <pause dur="0.4"/> well you might do that by appealing say to the syntactic properties <pause dur="0.3"/> of each expression <pause dur="0.5"/> or <pause dur="0.9"/> i guess a probably more popular <pause dur="0.2"/> move <pause dur="0.4"/> is to appeal to the kind of pragmatic properties <pause dur="0.4"/> that these expressions have <pause dur="1.8"/> the fact that on some occasions of use <pause dur="0.2"/> it's fitting <pause dur="0.2"/> to use the term Hesperus <pause dur="0.5"/> and on some occasions of use it's fitting <pause dur="0.4"/> to use the word <pause dur="0.4"/> Phosphorus <pause dur="1.9"/> so what these kind of people like <pause dur="0.2"/> # Nathan Salmon <pause dur="0.3"/> wrote a whole book <pause dur="1.4"/> Nathan Salmon one of the great fish philosophers <pause dur="0.2"/> of the century

did we look at him last term <pause dur="1.1"/> no <pause dur="0.9"/> # Nathan Salmon wrote a whole book called Frege's Puzzle <pause dur="0.2"/> in which he argues that <pause dur="0.4"/> the only difference <pause dur="0.4"/> that's relevant here between Hesperus and Phosphorus is a pragmatic difference <pause dur="1.6"/> why don't you say <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="15"/> something like <pause dur="6.8"/> the ancient astronomers believed <pause dur="5.1"/> Hesperus was Phosphorus <pause dur="1.6"/> okay it was the ancient astronomers that introduced the two different terms Hesperus and Phosphorus <pause dur="0.4"/> one for the star that you could see in the morning <pause dur="0.3"/> one for the star that you could see in the evening <pause dur="1.8"/> so <pause dur="1.4"/> they introduced these two terms they didn't realize that they were naming the same planet <pause dur="0.4"/> 'cause obviously that wouldn't have been very helpful to have used two different words for something they realized was the same planet <pause dur="0.9"/> they introduced two different words for it <pause dur="0.3"/> called one Hesperus and one Phosphorus <pause dur="1.7"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> so it doesn't sound right to say that the ancient astronomers believed that Hesperus was Hesperus <pause dur="0.3"/> even though it does seem right <pause dur="0.6"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> to

say that the ancient astronomers believed that Hesperus <pause dur="0.4"/> was Hesperus <pause dur="2.3"/> that's the kind of failure of exchange <pause dur="0.3"/> that <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> Frege's Puzzle is interested in <pause dur="1.0"/> but people like Nathan Salmon want to say well look <pause dur="0.2"/> actually you can say both those things <pause dur="1.2"/> both of those sentences are perfectly <pause dur="0.9"/> <trunc>r</trunc> <pause dur="0.5"/> right they're perfectly true <pause dur="0.7"/> because <pause dur="0.9"/> semantics is just to do with reference <pause dur="0.4"/> it's just that this one <pause dur="0.2"/> this first sentence <pause dur="0.3"/> is not very acceptable <pause dur="0.8"/> there are pragmatic reasons that you don't want to # <pause dur="0.2"/> attribute this kind of thing <pause dur="0.4"/> primarily because this isn't something <pause dur="0.3"/> that the ancient astronomers themselves <pause dur="0.7"/> would have assented to <pause dur="0.7"/> even though when they were believing that Hesperus was Hesperus they were really believing that Hesperus was Phosphorus <pause dur="0.5"/> that's not the way they would have chosen to phrase their beliefs <pause dur="2.0"/> now i can see certain people <pause dur="0.2"/> like <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/><pause dur="0.3"/> and <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> not looking totally convinced by this manoeuvre here <pause dur="0.4"/> and i <pause dur="0.5"/> i'm in sympathy with you really it doesn't sound

like an intuitively very compelling manoeuvre <pause dur="0.3"/> although you know Salmon's book's <pause dur="0.3"/> worth having a look at because he gives this kind of line a really <pause dur="0.9"/> good go you know it's a big book <pause dur="1.2"/> lots of arguments for his position <pause dur="0.9"/> but <pause dur="0.9"/> if you're feeling a bit <pause dur="0.2"/> kind of sceptical about this sort of worry then i think that's fair enough <pause dur="0.4"/> really <pause dur="2.2"/> and maybe if that's the way you are feeling <pause dur="0.3"/> then <pause dur="1.8"/> we can kind of let Frege off the hook <pause dur="1.0"/> even if we can't find a really strong way to kind of <pause dur="0.2"/> codify his argument <pause dur="0.4"/> perhaps it is the case that the worries he raises <pause dur="0.4"/> are <pause dur="0.2"/> good enough <pause dur="1.2"/> that if he can get to the conclusion that Hesperus and Phosphorus differ in something other than referent <pause dur="1.2"/> we just kind of feel that has to be something to do with the meaning <pause dur="0.3"/> of the expressions involved even if he can't actually get you to that conclusion <pause dur="1.1"/> deductively <pause dur="0.4"/> perhaps it just seems reasonable that the thing that they differ in <pause dur="0.2"/> has to be a thing to do with the meaning <pause dur="0.3"/> it can't be something to do just with the pragmatics <pause dur="0.7"/> as Salmon

tries to argue <pause dur="3.1"/> okay how are we doing people clear on the <pause dur="0.2"/> kind of argument <pause dur="1.3"/> yeah </u><pause dur="2.1"/> <u who="sf0109" trans="pause"> can i just ask is the </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> yeah </u><pause dur="0.6"/> <u who="sf0109" trans="pause"> is the Salmon position something we really need to sort of know about in detail <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> no <pause dur="0.7"/> no </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="sf0109" trans="pause"> if you # # </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> it's if you're interested you should have a look at it </u><u who="sf0109" trans="overlap"> mm </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> but it's not </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="sf0109" trans="pause"> it's not going to be an exam question or anything <vocal desc="laughter" n="ss" iterated="y" dur="1"/> </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> oh <pause dur="0.7"/> God what sort of question is that i'm not answering questions like that <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="2"/><pause dur="0.9"/> okay then so that's Frege's argument <pause dur="0.4"/> this kind of cluster of worries that seem to show us that the Millian position which tells us that the meaning of a proper name is just given by the object it refers to <pause dur="0.3"/> that that position is somehow <pause dur="0.4"/> unsatisfactory <pause dur="3.5"/> so clearly we know that position is unsatisfactory <pause dur="1.1"/> and we've got a good argument against it <pause dur="0.8"/> what we need to do next <pause dur="0.3"/> is to come up with a better position <pause dur="1.3"/> we need to find a positive suggestion <pause dur="0.6"/> as to what the meaning <pause dur="0.2"/> of a proper name is which is going to

allow us to avoid <pause dur="0.2"/> these kinds of difficulties <pause dur="1.5"/> and Frege's <pause dur="0.7"/> got a solution <pause dur="0.8"/> and being a great philosopher he's got two solutions <pause dur="0.7"/> one of which he made in an early stage of his career went on to reject <pause dur="0.4"/> and the second one which has become a kind of standard of philosophy of language <pause dur="1.2"/> so his first suggestion which he made in <distinct lang="de">Begriffsschrift</distinct> <pause dur="0.8"/> one of his earlier works <pause dur="0.9"/> was that a sentence like Hesperus is Phosphorus <pause dur="0.3"/> should be read <pause dur="0.2"/> as saying something like <pause dur="0.5"/> the object denoted by the expression <pause dur="0.3"/> Hesperus <pause dur="1.2"/> is the same as the object <pause dur="0.2"/> denoted <pause dur="0.2"/> by the expression <pause dur="0.8"/> Phosphorus <pause dur="2.0"/> okay you all remember from last term <pause dur="4.0"/> notice the way that's not a question that's a statement you do all remember from last term <pause dur="0.3"/> i know you do <pause dur="1.0"/> the difference between <pause dur="1.8"/> using and mentioning <pause dur="1.8"/> anyone want to remind me what the difference between using an expression and mentioning an expression is <pause dur="1.1"/> we did it in the

first week of the first term so you know <pause dur="0.4"/> way back <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="4.1"/> <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> </u><pause dur="0.6"/> <u who="sm0103" trans="pause"> # well <pause dur="0.3"/> one of them's <pause dur="0.2"/> kind of quotation marks round it <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> which means that you're <pause dur="0.3"/> referring to the <pause dur="0.3"/> word </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> mm-hmm </u><u who="sm0103" trans="overlap"> rather than what the word <pause dur="0.5"/> refers to </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0098" trans="pause"> exactly right <pause dur="0.3"/> perfect <pause dur="0.8"/> the difference between <pause dur="0.2"/> saying something like <pause dur="0.7"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="12"/> John <pause dur="1.1"/> is happy <pause dur="1.4"/> which tells you <pause dur="2.6"/><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.5"/> that <pause dur="1.7"/> right <pause dur="0.8"/> and saying <pause dur="1.5"/> # that's single quotes <pause dur="6.1"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="5"/>

which tells you what </u><pause dur="3.4"/> <u who="sm0110" trans="pause"> the word <pause dur="0.2"/> John <pause dur="0.4"/> is that </u><pause dur="0.6"/> <u who="nf0098" trans="pause"> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> doesn't really make much sense <pause dur="0.4"/> this tells you something about the word because you've enclosed it <pause dur="0.4"/> in quote marks you're mentioning it <pause dur="0.2"/> you're not using it <pause dur="0.3"/> you're talking not about <pause dur="0.9"/> this big eared guy up here <pause dur="0.2"/> with a grin on his face <pause dur="0.3"/> you're talking about the linguistic item <pause dur="0.2"/> the word itself <pause dur="1.0"/> and you can use it <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> to say true things like <pause dur="5.6"/> like that <pause dur="1.2"/> John has four letters <pause dur="0.5"/> that's fine <pause dur="0.8"/> and if you take off the quote mark <pause dur="0.9"/> what does that mean </u><pause dur="1.6"/> <u who="sf0111" trans="pause"> the person John has four letters </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> exactly <pause dur="0.7"/> maybe that's why he's so happy <pause dur="2.5"/> <vocal desc="laughter" n="sf0111" iterated="y" dur="2"/> it's his birthday he's got four cards <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> Frege's first manoeuvre here <pause dur="0.5"/> is try <pause dur="0.5"/> to differentiate <pause dur="0.3"/> use and mention <pause dur="1.8"/> what he's saying really is

that when you have <pause dur="0.2"/> a sentence like Hesperus is Phosphorus <pause dur="0.4"/> you're really not saying something about the world <pause dur="0.6"/> you're saying something about your language <pause dur="1.0"/> what you're saying is that <pause dur="4.7"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="18"/> the object referred to <pause dur="4.8"/> by that <pause dur="2.9"/> is <pause dur="0.9"/> the object referred to <pause dur="0.9"/> by that <pause dur="3.6"/> okay <pause dur="0.5"/> put your name Hesperus and your name Phosphorus <pause dur="0.4"/> you've enclosed them in quote marks <pause dur="0.3"/> so you're mentioning them you're not using them <pause dur="0.5"/> and you're saying that the thing <pause dur="0.2"/> which is picked out by this linguistic item <pause dur="0.3"/> is the same as the thing picked out by this linguistic item <pause dur="3.6"/> now this was Frege's first proposal <pause dur="0.8"/> but he rejected it pretty quickly <pause dur="0.3"/> oh we might talk about this as a metalinguistic <pause dur="0.2"/> proposal <pause dur="0.4"/> okay <pause dur="0.9"/> because it's explaining a linguistic fact <pause dur="0.3"/> by using <pause dur="1.0"/> items <pause dur="0.2"/> from the language <pause dur="0.7"/> in the explanation <vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> it's kind of going one level higher than language right it's metalinguistic because it's <pause dur="0.4"/> mentioning <pause dur="0.4"/> bits <pause dur="0.7"/> of the linguistic system <pause dur="1.9"/> so this was his first proposal <pause dur="0.3"/> but he rejected it pretty quickly <pause dur="0.4"/> because he just thought

that actually <pause dur="0.2"/> on reflection <pause dur="0.6"/> this whole claim here <pause dur="0.6"/> just isn't <pause dur="0.4"/> what's meant <pause dur="0.4"/> by a claim like <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="3"/> Hesperus is Phosphorus <pause dur="3.1"/> he just decided that this <pause dur="0.8"/> equivalence claim to do with bits of your language <pause dur="0.5"/> isn't what's meant by a claim <pause dur="0.5"/> like this without the quote marks <pause dur="1.6"/> and he thought that <pause dur="0.3"/> because <pause dur="2.1"/> if you look at a sentence like Hesperus is Phosphorus <pause dur="0.2"/> or a sentence like <pause dur="0.7"/> # Abraham Lincoln was the first postmaster general <pause dur="1.0"/> or Cicero was Tully <pause dur="1.6"/> those claims don't <pause dur="0.2"/> seem to be telling you something about your language <pause dur="3.0"/> i'm guessing <pause dur="0.2"/> that none of you knew that Abraham Lincoln <pause dur="0.3"/> was the inventor of the bifocals when you came in here </u><u who="sf0112" trans="latching"> Benjamin Franklin </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0098" trans="pause"> was it was wasn't it </u><u who="sf0112" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> you're absolutely <vocal desc="laughter" n="ss" iterated="y" dur="1"/> right oh my goodness <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/> </u><u who="sm0113" trans="latching"> that's why none of us knew it i think </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> <vocal desc="laughter" n="sl" iterated="y" dur="1"/> that's very true <pause dur="0.3"/> or i could have bluffed my whole way through here <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/> and you could have got a degree from a university and gone out with a completely false piece of knowledge <vocal desc="laughter" n="ss" iterated="y" dur="1"/>

couldn't i <pause dur="1.0"/> absolutely right Benjamin Franklin <pause dur="0.3"/> this is the this is the example gets used in all the books as well so it shows how carefully i've been reading things <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/><pause dur="0.6"/> Benjamin Franklin indeed was the inventor of the bifocals <pause dur="1.3"/> so <pause dur="1.3"/> <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> block your ears now but i'm assuming some people <pause dur="0.4"/> in fact nobody knew that Abraham Lincoln was <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/><shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/> the inventor of <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> bifocals when you came in here so that's a good example <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> but when you learn something of that form <pause dur="0.4"/> it doesn't seem like you learn something about your language <pause dur="0.8"/> it looks like you learn something about the world <pause dur="1.2"/> you learn a genuine useful fact to go out and apply <pause dur="0.2"/> in the world <pause dur="0.9"/> and not just something <pause dur="0.3"/> to do with your language <pause dur="1.6"/> and because of that <pause dur="0.4"/> Frege thought that this kind of <pause dur="1.0"/> restating of the problem <pause dur="1.0"/> in terms <pause dur="0.4"/> of a <pause dur="0.7"/> comment about the language <pause dur="1.4"/> wasn't <pause dur="0.2"/> a good way to go <pause dur="0.9"/> so even though this sort of approach might solve the problem <pause dur="0.4"/> he just thought it was getting things wrong <pause dur="5.1"/> okay <pause dur="0.6"/> so once he'd rejected this sort of

proposal <pause dur="0.5"/> what's he going to do <pause dur="1.1"/> well being a very smart guy he's going to come up with a whole new theory <pause dur="0.2"/> of the meaning of proper names <pause dur="1.6"/> according to Frege <pause dur="3.5"/> in his classic paper <pause dur="0.2"/> <distinct lang="de">Sinn und Bedeutung</distinct> <pause dur="1.3"/> he's going to tell you <pause dur="0.6"/> that there are <pause dur="0.2"/> two <pause dur="0.2"/> elements <pause dur="0.4"/> to the meaning <pause dur="0.2"/> of a proper name <pause dur="1.7"/> Mill tried to tell you that there was just one <pause dur="0.8"/> there was just this guy <pause dur="0.2"/> in the world <pause dur="2.1"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="12"/> the denotation <pause dur="0.2"/> or the referent <pause dur="9.0"/> but what Frege's going to tell you <pause dur="1.4"/> is that although <pause dur="0.2"/> this is right although this forms one element <pause dur="0.2"/> of the meaning of the name <pause dur="0.4"/> there's another element <pause dur="1.6"/> and that element is the <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="12"/> sense <pause dur="1.8"/> sometimes also called the mode of presentation <pause dur="4.7"/> whoops <pause dur="4.7"/> so for Frege <pause dur="0.4"/> the meaning of a proper name is a kind of <pause dur="0.3"/> bifurcated <pause dur="0.3"/> thing it's got two elements to it a <pause dur="0.2"/> dual <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> feature <pause dur="0.2"/> two features <pause dur="1.9"/> on the one hand <pause dur="0.3"/> you've got the object referred to in the world <pause dur="0.8"/> the referent <pause dur="1.2"/> or the denotation <pause dur="0.7"/> and on the other hand <pause dur="0.4"/> you've got the way in which that object <pause dur="0.5"/> is presented <pause dur="2.9"/> so think

about Hesperus and Phosphorus again <pause dur="0.2"/> you might think that <pause dur="0.4"/> the sense <pause dur="0.2"/> of Hesperus <pause dur="0.5"/> is <pause dur="0.8"/> the bright star seen in the morning <pause dur="0.3"/> and you might think the sense <pause dur="0.2"/> of Phosphorus <pause dur="0.3"/> is the bright star <pause dur="0.3"/> seen in the evening <pause dur="1.2"/> even though <pause dur="0.4"/> the referent is the same for both of those expressions <pause dur="1.8"/> or here <pause dur="0.2"/> you might think that <pause dur="0.3"/> the referent of Cicero <pause dur="0.6"/> is <pause dur="0.2"/> our Greek orator <pause dur="1.2"/> but the sense is <pause dur="1.9"/> not entirely sure what the sense of Cicero would be <pause dur="0.4"/> # the author of <pause dur="0.2"/> certain works <pause dur="4.1"/> and it's going to be this element <pause dur="0.4"/> that's going to explain <pause dur="0.3"/> why it is <pause dur="0.5"/> that we get <pause dur="0.3"/> cognitive difference <pause dur="1.6"/> okay and why is it <pause dur="0.5"/> that you can believe <pause dur="0.4"/> Superman can fly <pause dur="1.3"/> when you don't believe that Clark Kent can fly <pause dur="0.4"/> well that's because <pause dur="0.6"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="30"/> even though <pause dur="0.2"/> you've got the same referent in the world <pause dur="3.5"/> for Clark Kent <pause dur="2.8"/> you've got a sense to do with <pause dur="2.1"/> wearing glasses <pause dur="2.5"/> being a bit of a <pause dur="0.4"/> skinny wimp <pause dur="1.6"/> working for a newspaper <pause dur="2.6"/> whereas for Superman <pause dur="1.9"/> you've got a sense to do with <pause dur="1.4"/> wearing a cape <pause dur="1.4"/> wearing his underwear outside his trousers <pause dur="0.3"/> flying

around <pause dur="0.5"/> flying that's pretty good you don't get flying with Clark Kent <pause dur="2.4"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="2"/> so even though you've got the same object being presented in both these cases <pause dur="0.6"/> you've got radically different <pause dur="0.9"/> kind of modes of presentation of that object <pause dur="0.3"/> <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> you're looking </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="sf0112" trans="pause"> so <pause dur="0.6"/> are things like definite descriptions like the first postmaster general or <pause dur="0.2"/> something like that are they senses or are they names </u><u who="nf0098" trans="latching"> well <pause dur="0.7"/> we're going to need to look more carefully at exactly what a sense is here </u><u who="sf0112" trans="overlap"> mm </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> i'm trying to give you a kind of <pause dur="0.3"/> rough idea to start with <pause dur="0.2"/> and then we're going to try and spell out what the technical notion of a sense is <pause dur="2.2"/> the question about definite descriptions # <pause dur="1.0"/> we need to remember we're talking about proper names <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> in a kind of non-technical sense at the moment <pause dur="1.1"/> it was quite clear when we looked at Mill that he had a fairly restricted notion of proper names <pause dur="0.3"/> but Frege has a much more liberal notion </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="sf0112" trans="pause"> mm </u><u who="nf0098" trans="latching"> okay Frege's going to tell you <pause dur="0.4"/> that something like Cicero is a proper name something like Clark Kent is a proper name <pause dur="0.3"/> something like Superman is a proper name <pause dur="0.5"/> he's also going to tell you though that something

like the first postmaster general </u><u who="sf0112" trans="overlap"> mm </u><u who="nf0098" trans="latching"> is a proper name <pause dur="0.9"/> because he's got a class of what <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="4"/> he calls <pause dur="1.1"/> <distinct lang="de">eigename</distinct> <pause dur="0.6"/> <distinct lang="de">eigenamen</distinct> <pause dur="1.5"/> which contains both ordinary proper names and definite descriptions </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="sf0112" trans="pause"> does that mean then when we're trying to sort of work out how to express the sense of Cicero we couldn't use something which is like unique to Cicero <pause dur="0.3"/> because if we did </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> well </u><u who="sf0112" trans="overlap"> wouldn't it be a proper name <gap reason="inaudible" extent="2 secs"/> </u><pause dur="0.8"/> <u who="nf0098" trans="pause"> # </u><u who="sf0112" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> as the sense </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="nf0098" trans="pause"> there's going to be a question about whether senses are just forms of definite description </u><pause dur="0.7"/> <u who="sf0112" trans="pause"> right </u><u who="nf0098" trans="latching"> some people read them as just being <pause dur="0.5"/> forms of definite description <pause dur="0.4"/> although even then <pause dur="2.4"/> you might want to be careful because # talking about replacing a name like Cicero with a definite description <pause dur="2.0"/> there might be distinctions when we come to look at Kripke we'll see there are distinctions between saying that the meaning of this is given by a description <pause dur="0.3"/> as opposed to saying that the reference is fixed by a description </u><u who="sf0112" trans="overlap"> mm </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="nf0098" trans="pause"> so there might be questions about exactly what it means

to say that this can be replaced by a description <pause dur="0.8"/> but <pause dur="1.1"/> to get ahead of ourselves a little bit as well <pause dur="0.5"/> it's not clear that a sense has to be <pause dur="0.2"/> a definite description </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="sf0112" trans="pause"> right </u><pause dur="0.7"/> <u who="nf0098" trans="pause"> people like Evans kind of <pause dur="0.3"/> modern-day <pause dur="0.2"/> neo-Fregeans as they get called <pause dur="0.4"/> want to tell you that there's a notion of sense <pause dur="0.3"/> which isn't <pause dur="0.3"/> akin to being a definite description <pause dur="0.2"/> which isn't akin to say <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> the guy who i believe can fly and loves <pause dur="0.2"/> Lois Lane and <pause dur="1.2"/> wears a cape and all that kind of thing <pause dur="1.3"/> there's a notion of sense which is more akin to a sort of <pause dur="0.8"/> # a visual presentation <pause dur="0.3"/> or <pause dur="1.0"/> something which is kind of dependent on the object <pause dur="0.5"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> i think it's on your handouts a bit later actually we'll see Evans has got a nice quote about <pause dur="0.6"/> just because you say that there's a way of giving an object if i give you a present there's a way in which i give you the present <pause dur="1.3"/> but that's not to say that the giving of the present is kind of indirect <pause dur="0.4"/> or that <pause dur="0.2"/> the way of giving it is something independent of the giving of the present <pause dur="0.6"/> or the

present itself <pause dur="1.0"/> so he's going to want to have senses which are what he calls object-dependent <pause dur="1.1"/> they're going to be <pause dur="0.6"/> modes of presentation of an object which can't be separated from the object <pause dur="0.6"/> # that they <pause dur="0.4"/> as a sense of <pause dur="0.5"/> good sentence <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="2.4"/> but you're right to think <pause dur="0.4"/> that we might understand a sense as a definite description <pause dur="0.7"/> # and if we do then we'll see that Frege's position <pause dur="0.4"/> is going to be what's called being a descriptivist about names <pause dur="1.2"/> so we'll come on to that <pause dur="1.1"/> any other questions so far </u><u who="sm0113" trans="latching"> # </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="sm0113" trans="pause"> # <pause dur="0.3"/> does the is the problem <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> if you see it from a use theory because then you only have pragmatic <pause dur="0.3"/> like so if you went back to the <pause dur="0.5"/> assignment of </u><u who="nf0098" trans="latching"> mm </u><u who="sm0113" trans="overlap"> then it it seems a bit more <pause dur="0.7"/> plausible doesn't it </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> if you're not coming from a formal perspective </u><u who="sm0113" trans="overlap"> mm </u><u who="nf0098" trans="overlap"> yeah i think that's probably right <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="3.5"/> yeah i <trunc>m</trunc> this whole sort of problem is probably premised more on having a kind of referentialist semantics going on definitely <pause dur="0.2"/> so yeah think that's right <pause dur="5.7"/>

okay <pause dur="1.0"/> # so there's a quote on the handout <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> i've told you that <pause dur="1.8"/> the object referred to <pause dur="0.3"/> there's two elements to the meaning of name both the object referred to <pause dur="0.3"/> and the sense <pause dur="0.4"/> sense being the way in which the name selects the object <pause dur="1.4"/> and Frege tells us in <distinct lang="de">Sinn und Bedeutung</distinct> that <pause dur="0.4"/> it is plausible to connect with a sign <pause dur="0.5"/> a name a word combination an expression <pause dur="0.5"/> not only the designated object which may also be called the reference of the sign <pause dur="0.5"/> but also <pause dur="0.2"/> the sense <pause dur="0.5"/> and he puts in brackets connotation meaning <pause dur="0.5"/> of

the sign <pause dur="0.5"/> in which is contained the manner <pause dur="0.2"/> and context of presentation <pause dur="1.6"/> so for those guys who were paying attention when we were doing Mill <pause dur="0.4"/> last week <pause dur="0.4"/> you'll see that really what Frege's doing here is extending <pause dur="0.7"/> the notion of meaning <pause dur="0.2"/> that Mill gave us for all <pause dur="0.2"/> words for objects <pause dur="1.2"/> bar proper names <pause dur="0.3"/> Frege is extending that picture <pause dur="0.2"/> to proper names <pause dur="0.5"/> he thinks that Mill's idea <pause dur="0.3"/> that we could have names having denotation but no connotation <pause dur="0.3"/> is just wrong <pause dur="1.6"/> names have to have both sense and reference they have to have both denotation and connotation <pause dur="4.1"/> okay then <pause dur="0.2"/> well before we go on perhaps we should take a break <pause dur="1.0"/> any other questions before we go on about <pause dur="0.3"/> Frege's argument <pause dur="2.7"/> okay let's take <pause dur="0.3"/> five minutes then

</u></body>

</text></TEI.2>