| Home | Previous | Next | Table of Contents | Abstract | Bottom |
7. Bringing It All Home
| It's time to give Mephisto his due. He demands to be told what all
those symbols, and structured individuals, have to do with Frege's Principle
and the problem of identity.
According to Frege's Principle, the meaning of a sentence remains constant
when a singular term is substituted for another with the same meaning.
If Frege were right, Hesperus couldn't possibly mean Hesperus and Phosphorus
couldn't possibly mean Phosphorus. Granted that Hesperus = Phosphorus,
if Hesperus meant Hesperus and Phosphorus meant Phosphorus, Frege got it wrong. Let me say why. Symbolize Hesperus by h and Phosphorus by p. The identity of Hesperus and Hesperus then comes to: (3) h = hand the identity of Hesperus and Phosphorus to: (4) h = pBy hypothesis, Hesperus and Phosphorus are complexes--C-complexes, to be exact. As a result, (3) and (4) go over into assertions about (5) h.H = h.HNow, T3c says that C-complexes are identical just in case there is some complex of which their constituents are parts, so that by being parts of that compound entity these are one in substance. By hypothesis, Hesperus and Phosphorus are C-complexes. Consequently, the identity of Hesperus and Phosphorus involves the oneness in substance of the constituents of both Hesperus and Phosphorus. Not so the self-identity of Hesperus, for as T3d suggests, Hesperus's self-identity depends not upon the oneness in substance of the constituents of both Hesperus and Phosphorus, but upon the oneness in substance of the constituents of Hesperus alone. Therefore, since |
![]()
| Home | Previous | Next | Table of Contents | Abstract | Top |