Publikation:

Why Frege Did Not Plagiarize the Stoics : More on the Relationship Between Fregean and Stoic Logic

Lade...
Vorschaubild

Dateien

Rami_2-18xtqo0bqf8qo0.pdf
Rami_2-18xtqo0bqf8qo0.pdfGröße: 1.93 MBDownloads: 19

Datum

2024

Herausgeber:innen

Kontakt

ISSN der Zeitschrift

Electronic ISSN

ISBN

Bibliografische Daten

Verlag

Schriftenreihe

Auflagebezeichnung

ArXiv-ID

Internationale Patentnummer

Link zur Lizenz

Angaben zur Forschungsförderung

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG): RA 3012/4-1

Projekt

Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Open Access Hybrid
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz

Gesperrt bis

Titel in einer weiteren Sprache

Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published

Erschienen in

History and Philosophy of Logic. Taylor & Francis. 2024, 45(4), S. 435-459. ISSN 0144-5340. eISSN 1464-5149. Verfügbar unter: doi: 10.1080/01445340.2024.2333689

Zusammenfassung

In this paper we give a detailed comparison of the key elements of Frege’s formal language of thought and apparently similar views in Stoic formal logic. That is, we compare their views on the following topics: connectives, negation, simple sentences, propositional content, predicates and their incompleteness, and quantifications. We show that in most of these cases the similarities between Frege’s views and the Stoic views are only superficial. Frege’s views are far more systematic, better developed and can in no case directly or fully be traced back to Stoic ideas. Furthermore, we show that Prantl, pace Bobzien 2021, is in most of these cases not a reliable source with respect to Stoic logic and that it is very unlikely that Frege’s views on logic were influenced by Prantl’s interpretation of Stoic formal logic.

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache

Fachgebiet (DDC)
100 Philosophie

Schlagwörter

Frege, Stoic logic, modern classical logic, compositional semantics, content theory

Konferenz

Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined

Forschungsvorhaben

Organisationseinheiten

Zeitschriftenheft

Zugehörige Datensätze in KOPS

Zitieren

ISO 690RAMI, Dolf, Gottfried GABRIEL, Karlheinz HÜLSER, 2024. Why Frege Did Not Plagiarize the Stoics : More on the Relationship Between Fregean and Stoic Logic. In: History and Philosophy of Logic. Taylor & Francis. 2024, 45(4), S. 435-459. ISSN 0144-5340. eISSN 1464-5149. Verfügbar unter: doi: 10.1080/01445340.2024.2333689
BibTex
@article{Rami2024-10Frege-71398,
  year={2024},
  doi={10.1080/01445340.2024.2333689},
  title={Why Frege Did Not Plagiarize the Stoics : More on the Relationship Between Fregean and Stoic Logic},
  number={4},
  volume={45},
  issn={0144-5340},
  journal={History and Philosophy of Logic},
  pages={435--459},
  author={Rami, Dolf and Gabriel, Gottfried and Hülser, Karlheinz}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/71398">
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2024-11-22T08:44:35Z</dcterms:available>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/71398"/>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2024-11-22T08:44:35Z</dc:date>
    <dc:creator>Gabriel, Gottfried</dc:creator>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"/>
    <dc:contributor>Gabriel, Gottfried</dc:contributor>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dcterms:issued>2024-10</dcterms:issued>
    <dcterms:abstract>In this paper we give a detailed comparison of the key elements of Frege’s formal language of thought and apparently similar views in Stoic formal logic. That is, we compare their views on the following topics: connectives, negation, simple sentences, propositional content, predicates and their incompleteness, and quantifications. We show that in most of these cases the similarities between Frege’s views and the Stoic views are only superficial. Frege’s views are far more systematic, better developed and can in no case directly or fully be traced back to Stoic ideas. Furthermore, we show that Prantl, pace Bobzien 2021, is in most of these cases not a reliable source with respect to Stoic logic and that it is very unlikely that Frege’s views on logic were influenced by Prantl’s interpretation of Stoic formal logic.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/71398/1/Rami_2-18xtqo0bqf8qo0.pdf"/>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dc:creator>Hülser, Karlheinz</dc:creator>
    <dc:contributor>Rami, Dolf</dc:contributor>
    <dc:creator>Rami, Dolf</dc:creator>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/71398/1/Rami_2-18xtqo0bqf8qo0.pdf"/>
    <dc:rights>Attribution 4.0 International</dc:rights>
    <dcterms:title>Why Frege Did Not Plagiarize the Stoics : More on the Relationship Between Fregean and Stoic Logic</dcterms:title>
    <dc:contributor>Hülser, Karlheinz</dc:contributor>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Interner Vermerk

xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter

Kontakt
URL der Originalveröffentl.

Prüfdatum der URL

Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation

Finanzierungsart

Kommentar zur Publikation

Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Nein
Begutachtet
Ja
Diese Publikation teilen