|A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z &
- Literature/1984/Blackburn [^]
- Literature/1976/Dummett [^]
- Leach, Edmund (1976). Culture and Communication: The Logic by Which Symbols are Connected. Cambridge University Press. [^]
- Literature/1972/Kripke [^]
- Quine, Willard (1960). Word and Object. MIT Press. [^]
- Gellner, Ernest (1959). Words and Things: A Critical Account of Linguistic Philosophy and a Study in Ideology. London: Gollancz. [^]
- Russell, Bertrand (1957). "Mr Strawson on Referring." Mind 66: 385-389. [^]
- Austin, J. L. (1955). How to Do Things with Words. The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955, ed. by J. O. Urmson. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. [^]
- Black, Max (1954). "Metaphor." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 55, pp. 273-294. [^]
- Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell Publishing. [^]
- Strawson, Peter (1950). "On Referring." Mind, vol. 59, no. 235, pp. 320-344. [^]
- Ryle, Gilbert (1949). The Concept of Mind. University Of Chicago Press. [^]
- Richards, I. A. (1936). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford University Press. [^]
- Korzybski, Alfred (1933). Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. 5th ed., Institute of General Semantics, 1994. [^]
- Wells, H. G. (1933). The Shape of Things to Come. Hutchinson. [^]
- Frank, Jerome (1930). Law and the Modern Mind. Peter Smith, 1930. [^]
- Magritte, René (1929). The Treachery of Images (La trahison des images). Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, California. [^]
- Russell, Bertrand (1926). "The Meaning of Meaning." Dial, vol.81 (August 1926) pp. 114-121. [^]
- Ogden, C. K. & I. A. Richards (1923). The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. [^]
- Wells, H. G. (1923). Men Like Gods. Cassell and Co., Ltd. [^]
- Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Frank P. Ramsey & C. K. Ogden, trans., Kegan Paul, 1922. [^]
- Russell, Bertrand (1921). The Analysis of Mind. London: George Allen & Unwin. [^]
- Welby, Victoria Lady (1911). Significs and Language: The Articulate Form of Our Expressive and Interpretive Resources. H. Walter Schmitz, ed., John Benjamins, 1985. [^]
- Russell, Bertrand (1905). "On Denoting." Mind, vol. 14, pp. 479-493. [^]
- Frege, Gottlob (1892). "Über Sinn und Bedeutung," ("On Sense and Reference"), Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25-50. [^]
- Frege, Gottlob (1892). "Über Begriff und Gegenstand," ("On Concept and Object") Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 16: 192-205.
- Mill, John Stuart (1843). A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. John W. Parker. [^]
The morning star and the evening star (Frege's senses) are Venus (Frege's reference), as simply as the rising sun and the setting sun are the sun. All these are natural ideas of intersection and analogy regardless of cultural words.
That is to say, Frege's divide of sense and reference is as needless to say as that the sun rises east and sets west, or that it is bright and warm.
He does note (morning star) = (evening star), but does not note (morning star) ≠ (evening star).
The morning star is one thing (or referent if you like) and the evening star is another, however analogous both may be. "Everything is an analogy," as per 1974/Pirsig. That is, it is different from, and similar to, everything else. It may be marked by an identity in isolation but by too variant relations in context for a symbol to symbolize magically consistently or objectively. So the pure symbol-referent match without the mediating mind is a myth rather than a must, as illustrated by the triangle of reference on the right.
Both Mill and Frege were perhaps misguided by the "word magic" refuted by 1923/Ogden. It works no magic to refer direct but refer the mind to a thing, to be precise. Cognitivism should overcome this verbally trivial gap.
As a logician like J. S. Mill, he also looks like a word magician, textualist and externalist. Whatever is external, whether sign or design, however, is to be interpreted, whether common or uncommon. We intercept and then interpret signs and designs rather at will, whether common or uncommon.