El papel de Frege en la historia de la lógica

IF 0.1 Q3 Arts and Humanities
Lorenzo Peña
{"title":"El papel de Frege en la historia de la lógica","authors":"Lorenzo Peña","doi":"10.5281/ZENODO.5168811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While Kant's claim has been discredited — namely that logic had, by his time, neither progressed nor regressed ever since Aristotle — both the exact reason while he was wrong and the partial core of truth his assertion contained ought to be elucidated. Aristotle's was a logic of terms that ignored the calculus of statements, cultivated instead by the Stoic logicians and later Scholastics. However a unified — yet unsuccessful — logical account of terms and propositions was attempted by Leibniz. It was an anticipation of modern combinatory logic. Leibniz's successors took over his reduction of logic to a certain mathematical calculus. Boole asserted that all logical truths were algebraic equations. Nevertheless, existential statements showed themselves unamenable to his approach. It was Frege who really made a giant step forward by resorting to variables and inventing the quantifier, thanks to his theory of objects and functions. Thus, Aristotle's logic was at last somehaw overcome. Not quite, though, since both Aristotle's and Frege's accounts share common assumptions, which have been put to rest by nonclassical logics such as combinatory and many-valued logics.","PeriodicalId":52369,"journal":{"name":"Disputatio (Spain)","volume":"48 1","pages":"207-230"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disputatio (Spain)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.5168811","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While Kant's claim has been discredited — namely that logic had, by his time, neither progressed nor regressed ever since Aristotle — both the exact reason while he was wrong and the partial core of truth his assertion contained ought to be elucidated. Aristotle's was a logic of terms that ignored the calculus of statements, cultivated instead by the Stoic logicians and later Scholastics. However a unified — yet unsuccessful — logical account of terms and propositions was attempted by Leibniz. It was an anticipation of modern combinatory logic. Leibniz's successors took over his reduction of logic to a certain mathematical calculus. Boole asserted that all logical truths were algebraic equations. Nevertheless, existential statements showed themselves unamenable to his approach. It was Frege who really made a giant step forward by resorting to variables and inventing the quantifier, thanks to his theory of objects and functions. Thus, Aristotle's logic was at last somehaw overcome. Not quite, though, since both Aristotle's and Frege's accounts share common assumptions, which have been put to rest by nonclassical logics such as combinatory and many-valued logics.
弗雷格在逻辑史上的作用
虽然康德的主张已经不可信了——也就是说,在他的时代,逻辑自亚里士多德以来既没有进步,也没有倒退——但他错误的确切原因和他的主张所包含的部分真理核心都应该得到阐明。亚里士多德的术语逻辑忽略了陈述的演算,而是由斯多葛派逻辑学家和后来的经院哲学家培养出来的。然而,莱布尼茨试图对术语和命题进行统一但不成功的逻辑解释。这是对现代组合逻辑的预测。莱布尼茨的后继者继承了他对逻辑的简化,使之成为某种数学演算。布尔断言,所有的逻辑真理都是代数方程。然而,存在主义的陈述表明它们不适合他的方法。弗雷格运用变量,发明量词,这是他向前迈出的一大步,这要归功于他的对象和函数理论。这样,亚里士多德的逻辑终于在某种程度上被克服了。不过,也不完全如此,因为亚里士多德和弗雷格的叙述都有共同的假设,而这些假设已经被组合逻辑和多值逻辑等非经典逻辑所搁置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Disputatio (Spain)
Disputatio (Spain) Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
35 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信