(1) Frege and Russell on the Limits of Traditional Logic and its Reliance on Grammar
Both Frege and Russell argue that traditional logic, with its uncritical reliance on ordinary
grammar as the guide for logical form, are limited and problematic. What kinds of issues
and examples do they have in mind? What are their main arguments in this context? And
are there any significant differences between Frege and Russell on this topic in the end?
(2) Frege and Russell on the Advantages of the Language of Modern Logic
Both Frege and Russell think that the language of, and other tools from, modern logic are a
very useful tool not only for science but also for philosophy. What kinds of issues and
examples do they have in mind? Which main advantages do they see in this connection?
And are there any minor differences between Frege and Russell on this topic in the end?
(3) A Comparison of Fregean Thoughts and Russellian Propositions
What Frege calls “thoughts” correspond roughly to what Russell’s calls “propositions”.
What do they mean by these terms? Which similar roles do thoughts and propositions play
in their respective approaches to philosophical issues? What are some of the main
differences between the two? And which critical questions can one raise about each?
(4) Frege and Russell on Identity Statements and the Knowledge Contained in Them
Both Frege and Russell consider identity statements of the forms “a=a” and “a=b”, including
“The Morning Star = the Evening Star”, “Scott = the author of Waverly”, and “2+3=5”. What
is their respective analysis of such statements? In which way does each of them point out
that “a=b” can increase our knowledge while “a=a” cannot? And whose analysis is better?
(5) Frege and Russell on Statements Containing Empty Names or Empty Descriptions
Both Frege and Russell consider statements that contain empty names or empty definite
descriptions, such as “Odysseus landed at Ithaca” and “The present King of France is bald”.
What is their respective analysis of them? How would each of them argue for their own
analysis over the other’s? Finally, which analysis is more convincing to you and why?
(6) Frege and Russell on the Analysis of Negative Existential Statements
Both Frege and Russell consider negative existential statements, such as “Zeus does not
exist” and “The Golden Mountain does not exist”. For both, ‘Zeus’ and ‘the Golden
Mountain’ do not stand for entities that exists but do not subsist, like for Meinong. How
does each of them analyze such statements? And are there any differences in the end?
(7) Russell versus Meinong and Frege on a Robust Sense of Reality
Russell accuses Meinong of lacking a “robust sense of reality” when it comes to analyzing
propositions involving, e.g., round squares and Golden Mountains. What are Russell’s main
criticisms in that connection? Is there reason for him to criticize Frege in similar kinds of
ways? And how could either Meinong or Frege respond to Russell’s criticisms?
(8) Possible Arguments that Russell’s Theory is Superior to Frege’s
Both Frege and Russell propose theories for analyzing what is expressed when we use
certain sentences. In that sense, each of them develops a novel “theory of meaning”,
especially compared to older such theories. What are the main features of each theory?
And how could one argue, following Russell, that his theory is superior to Frege’s?
(9) Possible Arguments that Frege’s Theory is Superior to Russell’s
Both Frege and Russell propose theories for analyzing what is expressed when we use
certain sentences. In that sense, each of them develops a novel “theory of meaning”,
especially compared to older such theories. What are the main features of each of their
theories? And how could one argue that Frege’s has advantages over Russell’s?
(10) E.E.C. Jones’ Defense of Frege against Russell’s Criticisms
Jones addresses several Russellian criticisms of Frege’s theory of sense and reference, or
“meaning” and “denotation”, and defends Frege against these criticisms. How does Jones
proceed, i.e., what are her main counter-arguments to Russell? And do you think what she
provides is a convincing defense, including one that is faithful to Frege’s approach?
Further directions and general advise for writing a paper on one of these topics:
(i) The paper should start with a brief but careful summary of the relevant views (by Frege,
Russell, etc.). (ii) After that, it should be primarily an argumentative paper, i.e., one that spells
out reasons for or against certain claims. (iii) It is important to look carefully at the texts we
read, i.e., to stay close to them in what you write. (iv) Related to that, it usually helps to use
some relevant quotations (with references to page numbers in our textbook). (v) It is also
strongly advisable to use some illustrative examples, either ones by the authors or your own.
(vi) More basically, the claims at issue should be stated as precisely as possible. (vii) And the
arguments, either the author’s or your own, should be clear, forceful, and to the point.