Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gottlob Frege: The machine in the ghost (2017)

prospectmagazine.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: Gottlob Frege: The machine in the ghost (2017)

#11

Post by rrwo »

voidhorse wrote: post #10
nathias wrote: post #2

How completely obnoxious article. Frege was a tragic figure in philosophy, his work was recognized only through Russel and he is still very much ignored by the tradition he created. He answered the Russel paradox in the same way modern theory does, by introducing types, but instead of learning from him, especially the epistemological parts that are a relevant connection of analytical philosophy to kantianism, he was…

As others have said, I do think Frege gets a fair shake in academia, but he definitely could be studied more. He certainly doesn’t have the near pop-philosophical status of a Russel. I would also agree that Russel is overrated. For some reason, the public seems to love experts of narrow technical or scientific fields that proffer, usually inadequate, takes of other areas like morals all whilst ignoring the experts in…

There's too much focus on Frege (as well as Russell and Wittgenstein) in analytic philosophy.

You would think people such as Boole, Peirce, Łukaiewicz, Tarski, Brouwer, Heyting, Gentzen, Prawitz, Girard, and Martin-Löf are mere footnotes in the history of logic. Yet their work is more relevant and used by working mathematicians and computer scientists.

Re: Gottlob Frege: The machine in the ghost (2017)

#12

Post by mellosouls »

nathias wrote: post #2

How completely obnoxious article. Frege was a tragic figure in philosophy, his work was recognized only through Russel and he is still very much ignored by the tradition he created. He answered the Russel paradox in the same way modern theory does, by introducing types, but instead of learning from him, especially the epistemological parts that are a relevant connection of analytical philosophy to kantianism, he was…

I'm not sure that Russell is overrated by non-philosophers - his unusual popular fame for his field is down to his brilliance as a writer and communicator, and charisma and social engagement as a human being. Those are valuable qualities and he is rated accordingly for them.

Re: Gottlob Frege: The machine in the ghost (2017)

#13

Post by vehemenz »

denton-scratch wrote: post #4
nathias wrote: post #2

How completely obnoxious article. Frege was a tragic figure in philosophy, his work was recognized only through Russel and he is still very much ignored by the tradition he created. He answered the Russel paradox in the same way modern theory does, by introducing types, but instead of learning from him, especially the epistemological parts that are a relevant connection of analytical philosophy to kantianism, he was…

I'm inclined to agree that Russell was overrated. His most influential work was a mistake. > he is still very much ignored by the tradition he created Really? When I studied philosophy[0], reading at least some Frege was required for Philosophy of Logic and Philosophy of Language. Frege wasn't treated as obscure or unimportant; quite the reverse. Have things changed? [0] University of London, early 80's. Philosophica…

I read The Foundations of Arithmetic and On Sense and Reference for my analytic philosophy course. This was in the U.S. fifteen years ago. I agree that he was not treated as obscure at all. We wouldn't have Carnap (the analytic philosopher) without Frege.

Re: Gottlob Frege: The machine in the ghost (2017)

#14

Post by ogogmad »

denton-scratch wrote: post #4
nathias wrote: post #2

How completely obnoxious article. Frege was a tragic figure in philosophy, his work was recognized only through Russel and he is still very much ignored by the tradition he created. He answered the Russel paradox in the same way modern theory does, by introducing types, but instead of learning from him, especially the epistemological parts that are a relevant connection of analytical philosophy to kantianism, he was…

I'm inclined to agree that Russell was overrated. His most influential work was a mistake. > he is still very much ignored by the tradition he created Really? When I studied philosophy[0], reading at least some Frege was required for Philosophy of Logic and Philosophy of Language. Frege wasn't treated as obscure or unimportant; quite the reverse. Have things changed? [0] University of London, early 80's. Philosophica…

> His most influential work was a mistake.

Why? I think you're referring to Principia, which is a predecessor to Coq and Lean. While Coq and Lean don't use Principia's formalism, they do try and tackle the same problem. What did Principia fail at?

[edit]

Or are you referring to the programme of using formal logic to understand language and reliable everyday reasoning?

Re: Gottlob Frege: The machine in the ghost (2017)

#15

Post by ogogmad »

rrwo wrote: post #11
voidhorse wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As others have said, I do think Frege gets a fair shake in academia, but he definitely could be studied more. He certainly doesn’t have the near pop-philosophical status of a Russel. I would also agree that Russel is overrated. For some reason, the public seems to love experts of narrow technical or scientific fields that proffer, usually inadequate, takes of other areas like morals all whilst ignoring the experts in…

There's too much focus on Frege (as well as Russell and Wittgenstein) in analytic philosophy. You would think people such as Boole, Peirce, Łukaiewicz, Tarski, Brouwer, Heyting, Gentzen, Prawitz, Girard, and Martin-Löf are mere footnotes in the history of logic. Yet their work is more relevant and used by working mathematicians and computer scientists.

This is a brilliant comment. Thank you.

Each in turn:

Boole invented propositional logic. Peirce supposedly invented a lot, but got overlooked. Łukaiewicz, I'm not sure. Tarski employed quantifier elimination to prove the decidability of various theories like Euclidean geometry. Brouwer invented intuitionistic logic, and a(n arguably) viable approach to doing analysis and topology intuitionistically. Heyting provided semantics to intuitionistic logic. Gentzen created the proof calculus Natural Deduction which resembles informal proofs (as well as the closely related proof calculus Sequent Calculus). Prawitz I don't know. Girard, I don't know. Martin-Löf derived Dependently Typed Lambda Calculus using the Curry-Howard correspondence.

I guess all this stuff gets overlooked because Russell's goal was very ambitious: He wanted to connect formal logic with everyday language, and how to perform sound everyday reasoning. In that sense, his ambition was similar to the Stoics. The above stuff mostly doesn't address this use-case.

Re: Gottlob Frege: The machine in the ghost (2017)

#16

Post by dotsam »

cafard wrote: post #3

Clive James led off an essay by suggesting that there was a buddy movie to be made around Wittgenstein and Russell. He was joking, but part of the joke is that their fame much outran any engagement with or even interest in their philosophical work. I don't think that leaving little memory beyond the work is a bad thing. What does it add to one's understanding of Kant to know a few anecdotes about the regularity of hi…

> What does it add to one's understanding of Kant to know a few anecdotes about the regularity of his life.

If we can build up a picture of someone from anecdotes about their life we can use this information to inform our understanding of why their work might have taken one form rather than another.

For example, Schopenhauer criticised the notoriously obscure schemata of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason by saying that it was a result of Kant's psychological need for architectonic symmetry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(Kant)#cite_ref-93

Re: Gottlob Frege: The machine in the ghost (2017)

#17

Post by denton-scratch »

ogogmad wrote: post #14
denton-scratch wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm inclined to agree that Russell was overrated. His most influential work was a mistake. > he is still very much ignored by the tradition he created Really? When I studied philosophy[0], reading at least some Frege was required for Philosophy of Logic and Philosophy of Language. Frege wasn't treated as obscure or unimportant; quite the reverse. Have things changed? [0] University of London, early 80's. Philosophica…

> His most influential work was a mistake. Why? I think you're referring to Principia, which is a predecessor to Coq and Lean. While Coq and Lean don't use Principia's formalism, they do try and tackle the same problem. What did Principia fail at? [edit] Or are you referring to the programme of using formal logic to understand language and reliable everyday reasoning?

Principia was destroyed by Gödel, within about two years of its publication. That's what I'm referring to.

Re: Gottlob Frege: The machine in the ghost (2017)

#18

Post by ogogmad »

denton-scratch wrote: post #17
ogogmad wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His most influential work was a mistake. Why? I think you're referring to Principia, which is a predecessor to Coq and Lean. While Coq and Lean don't use Principia's formalism, they do try and tackle the same problem. What did Principia fail at? [edit] Or are you referring to the programme of using formal logic to understand language and reliable everyday reasoning?

Principia was destroyed by Gödel, within about two years of its publication. That's what I'm referring to.

No, it wasn't. I'm sometimes not sure if philosophers understand Goedel's incompleteness theorem. What do you base your claim on?

GIT is more a statement about the limitations of the proof-driven approach to mathematics than it is about any formalisation of mathematics like Principia's. It shows that whatever assumptions proofs are based on cannot be shown consistent except by assuming something even stronger. Principia is affected to exactly the same degree as all proof-driven mathematics, and no more.

I'm not sure whether there has ever been a satisfactory answer to the 2nd GIT among the mathematical establishment. I guess mathematicians just assume that everything is consistent, and go about proving theorems as normal. It seems that almost no mathematician understands - let alone cares about - these foundational concerns.

Principia is the predecessor to modern software like Lean, Coq and Agda. Nothing got destroyed.

Re: Gottlob Frege: The machine in the ghost (2017)

#19

Post by pfkurtz »

cafard wrote: post #3

Clive James led off an essay by suggesting that there was a buddy movie to be made around Wittgenstein and Russell. He was joking, but part of the joke is that their fame much outran any engagement with or even interest in their philosophical work. I don't think that leaving little memory beyond the work is a bad thing. What does it add to one's understanding of Kant to know a few anecdotes about the regularity of hi…

That he took a walk everyday is somewhat informative, given how much of his philosophy is centered on normativity, but I prefer the anecdote about how he was a billiards hustler as a student, because even more pointedly, Kant's philosophy is about making space for human freedom in a world of Newtonian mechanical determination.

Great love for Wittgenstein, Russell, Frege, the Vienna Circle—their philosophical and logical writings—and I do feel alienated when I encounter their popular treatments, because it makes my ego feel special having read their most important works, but I bet the Wittgenstein-Russell fame was good for lots of people getting exposed to the path: I heard about them in a Time Magazine special edition retrospective on artists and thinkers of the 20th Century 22 years ago.

Re: Gottlob Frege: The machine in the ghost (2017)

#20

Post by pfkurtz »

nathias wrote: post #2

How completely obnoxious article. Frege was a tragic figure in philosophy, his work was recognized only through Russel and he is still very much ignored by the tradition he created. He answered the Russel paradox in the same way modern theory does, by introducing types, but instead of learning from him, especially the epistemological parts that are a relevant connection of analytical philosophy to kantianism, he was…

Frege is all over analaytic philosophy, as I experienced it as an undergraduate in a top department. Many of the most important papers and books (Dummett, Kripke, Evans, etc) in philosophy of language, logic, mathematics take various of his positions as starting points.

I would describe Frege as the philosopher I had never heard of before showing up at a philosophy department whom I then heard the most about.

His insights were "forgotten" for a time, but have been central to discussions for several decades.

Post reply on HN