【摘要】： 弗雷格是十九至二十世紀(jì)轉(zhuǎn)折處偉大的數(shù)學(xué)家、邏輯學(xué)和哲學(xué)家。他創(chuàng)作的一系列論著被奉為邏輯學(xué)和哲學(xué)經(jīng)典,例如他的杰作《論涵義和意謂》就被譽(yù)為分析哲學(xué)的典范。在這篇極富創(chuàng)意的論文中,弗雷格提出了一個(gè)至今仍然困擾人們、被羅素稱為三大哲學(xué)難題之一的同一陳述疑難。它又被學(xué)者們稱為弗雷格疑難。這個(gè)疑難涉及同一關(guān)系與認(rèn)知差異,其復(fù)雜形式還涉及到間接引語(yǔ)和內(nèi)涵語(yǔ)境。本文只論述其簡(jiǎn)單形式,一般可以表述為:如果符號(hào)A、B的意謂相同,為什么兩個(gè)為真的同一陳述A=B比A=A具有更大的認(rèn)知價(jià)值?弗雷格獨(dú)具匠心地區(qū)分了符號(hào)的涵義與意謂,并以此作為理論工具,開(kāi)始了他的解疑之旅。 首先,他認(rèn)為同一陳述表述的是符號(hào)涵義之間的關(guān)系。在他看來(lái),“同一”或“相等”不是傳達(dá)符號(hào)意謂之間的關(guān)系。因?yàn)楹茱@然,由于A、B意謂相同,如果“同一”是符號(hào)意謂之間的關(guān)系,那么不能解釋A=A與A=B之間的認(rèn)知差異。弗雷格指出,當(dāng)我們考察一個(gè)符號(hào)的認(rèn)知價(jià)值時(shí)不能僅僅考慮意謂,還應(yīng)該考慮涵義。因?yàn)楹x與人們的認(rèn)識(shí)有關(guān)。他總結(jié)道:正是符號(hào)的涵義不同才導(dǎo)致了同一陳述A=A與A=B的認(rèn)知價(jià)值差異。弗雷格的解疑思路是很有啟發(fā)意義的。他明確區(qū)分符號(hào)的涵義與意謂對(duì)后世影響極大,成為二十世紀(jì)哲學(xué)“語(yǔ)言轉(zhuǎn)向”的導(dǎo)引之一。但是,不管弗雷格的思想多么有創(chuàng)意,也不論他的解答方案多么高明,就同一陳述疑難本身來(lái)說(shuō),弗雷格卻是個(gè)失敗者。他的失足之處,就在于過(guò)分依賴符號(hào)的涵義,而忽視了對(duì)“同一”本身的分析。 本文在借鑒國(guó)內(nèi)外最新解答方案的基礎(chǔ)上,對(duì)同一陳述疑難作了重新思考。筆者認(rèn)為,不能偏執(zhí)于符號(hào)的涵義,而應(yīng)該認(rèn)識(shí)到問(wèn)題的關(guān)鍵在于“同一”。通過(guò)對(duì)“同一”的深入分析,發(fā)現(xiàn)“同一”是內(nèi)涵性的,即傳遞了符號(hào)之間的語(yǔ)形或語(yǔ)義聯(lián)系。傳統(tǒng)意義上的“同一”只考慮其意謂或結(jié)果,是外延性的。當(dāng)然這對(duì)于外延邏輯的求真是基始的和必要的。但是,當(dāng)我們不僅考察一個(gè)等式的真而且還比較其認(rèn)知價(jià)值時(shí),就必須考慮符號(hào)(涵義)之間的聯(lián)系。正是內(nèi)涵性同一把不同符號(hào)(涵義)通過(guò)其共同的意謂聯(lián)系起來(lái),從而使同一陳述具有認(rèn)知價(jià)值,并且導(dǎo)致了A=A與A=B在認(rèn)知價(jià)值上的差異。
[Abstract]:Frege was a great mathematician, logician and philosopher at the turn of the nineteenth-twentieth century. His works are regarded as logical and philosophical classics, such as his masterpiece, on meaning and meaning, which is regarded as the model of analytical philosophy. In this creative paper, Frege presents the same statement that still puzzles people and is called one of the three philosophical dilemmas by Russell. It is also referred to by scholars as Frege puzzles. This problem involves the same relation and cognitive difference, and its complicated form also involves indirect quotation and connotative context. This paper deals only with its simple form, which can generally be expressed as: if the symbol Anb has the same meaning, why is it that the two statements are true and the same statement has more cognitive value than ANAA? Frege distinguishes the meaning and meaning of symbol with originality, and takes it as a theoretical tool to begin his journey of resolving doubt. First of all, he thinks that the same statement represents the relationship between symbolic meanings. In his view, "identity" or "equality" is not the relationship between symbols. Because it is obvious that because of the same meaning, if "same" is the relationship between symbolic meanings, then the cognitive difference between ANAA and AHB can not be explained. Frege points out that when we examine the cognitive value of a symbol, we should not only consider the meaning, but also the meaning. Because the meaning is related to people's understanding. He concluded: it is the different meanings of symbols that lead to the difference in cognitive value between ANAA and AHB. Frege's idea of solving doubt is very enlightening. He clearly distinguishes the meaning and meaning of symbols, which has great influence on later generations and has become one of the guide of "linguistic turn" of philosophy in the 20th century. But no matter how creative Frege's ideas are, and no matter how clever his solution is, Frege is a loser in terms of the very nature of the same statement. His mistake lies in relying too much on the meaning of symbols and neglecting the analysis of "identity" itself. Based on the latest solutions at home and abroad, this paper reconsiders the difficulties of the same statement. In my opinion, we should not be paranoid in the meaning of symbols, but should realize that the crux of the problem lies in "identity". Through the deep analysis of "identity", it is found that "identity" is connotative, that is, it conveys the morphological or semantic relation between symbols. Traditional sense of "identity" only considers its meaning or result, it is extraductive. Of course, this for the extension of logic is the first and necessary. However, when we not only examine the truth of an equation but also compare its cognitive value, we must consider the relationship between symbols. It is the connotative identity that connects different symbols (meanings) through their common meanings, which makes the same statement have cognitive value and leads to the difference of cognitive value between ANAA and ANAB.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類號(hào)】：B81-05

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 余俊偉;試論弗雷格的指稱理論[J];北京化工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年03期

2 徐明明;論弗雷格的語(yǔ)境原則[J];廣東社會(huì)科學(xué);1994年04期

3 王路;國(guó)外弗雷格研究概述[J];國(guó)外社會(huì)科學(xué);1995年09期

4 陳曉平;關(guān)于弗雷格的語(yǔ)境分析的評(píng)析[J];廣西大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2000年01期

5 陳曉平;句子的指稱與謂詞的定義域——對(duì)弗雷格意義理論的一些改進(jìn)[J];廣西大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1998年02期

6 王曉萍;二十世紀(jì)表達(dá)式指稱研究的發(fā)展[J];廣州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年08期

7 張燕京;弗雷格邏輯哲學(xué)思想評(píng)析[J];河北大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1996年02期

8 倪蔭林;弗雷格概念論探微[J];石家莊經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年05期

9 曉河;作為科學(xué)話語(yǔ)研究對(duì)象的“涵義”與“意義”[J];河北學(xué)刊;2002年04期

10 賀壽南,潘天群;弗雷格的邏輯觀評(píng)析[J];華南師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年05期

，

本文編號(hào)：2135598