Theory Comparisons: Fredge and Russell on Theory of Sense

Published: 2021-06-23
1093 words
4 pages
10 min to read
George Washington University
Type of paper: 
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Fredge and Russell are philosophy authors who approach the theory of sense from different angles and display different notion towards the sense of understanding. Each one of them argues concerning the ability of human understanding the revolving world regarding education. Fredge has majored in human language and simplicity of words. He breaks up his points using simple language while inter coordinating words to each other. His reference clearly states of how words are related to each other. They also have originality.

After reading their articles, I have come up with the points that will state the similarities and differences on their opinion concerning the sense of theory. Russell, on the other hand, deals with mathematical issues about Fredge theory of understanding. He claims that fredge has little knowledge concerning the ideas he speaks about in his article. In his article, Russell uses his methodology in the field of mathematics. He explains concepts in mathematics and application of numbers.

He tells the origin of numbers and their history (Russell pg. 56). Russell maintains originality and disapproving Fredge whose ideas only relies on matters that are not of basis or connectivity to the past. In his idea, Russell downplays the work of Fregde and claims it to be unfit for any scholar. Fredge and Russell have a different concept, and they play along in trying as much as possible to outdo each other (Fredge pg. 12) (Russell pg. 22). They both describe the human introduction to philosophy and how human discovery has contributed to development in the mathematics field and general assumption of understanding things.

Fredge and Russell on Theory of Sense

According to Fredge, proper names have sense and references. He claims there is a connection between words and sense. This changes the human thinking capacity by expanding our knowledge of things (Fredge pg. 7). This raises questions about the relationship between objects names and signs. Fredge relies so much on expression rather than the proper noun of objects. He goes with different configure value that he later terms as critical analysis (Fredge pg. 1). He goes further by naming the achievement of man. How man found that the sun is one and there is no other sun or suns that revolves daily. It is only a matter of time that things come to be approved and human to understand the operation and understanding of thins and the universe (Fredge pg. 6). He gives an example of the moon. When we look at the moon using a telescope, we only seed the front phase of the moon. How of the other parts or is there any other moon apart from the one we know? The independence of object is non-standing. Fredge states that there is a relationship between names and signs as names designate something. He says you cannot deny somebody to avoid arbitrarily. Grasp determines the sense of the proper noun.

Fredge says that ordinarily comes from sense. A proper noun is what human brains designate. His theory of sense does not reflect all nouns in the expression theory. Fredge further states that challenge from equality affect our thinking capacity and make us not in a position to solve questions that are not quite easy. He states that we cannot justify our thinking and everything stands on its own depending on the other thing. When we use signs we happen to explain a lot of things; we do not have proper knowledge of things that we are surrounded by. Fredge further distinguishes between sense and reference. In his opinion sense is a gift given enabling us to find signs that lead to the discovery of hidden or existing things. Fredge has a way of twisting words into a simple form. For example, instead of terming the ancestors he calls the parents. This definition of Fredge is not adequate and does not give clear reliability of originality. In his case, everything is related to each other.

Russell description differs from the theory of Fredge concerning the same theory of sense (Russell pg. 64). He states how the study of familiarity in two different directions. With familiar direction, it paves the way for more direction. He states the first direction can be easily used in mathematical solving of fraction, integers, and logic. In this case, there is an increase of general ideas. Pursuing opposite direction brings out a character of philosophy against the simple mathematics. In the early times, Greeks and Egyptians justified these directions by applying in mathematic geometry.

While thinking logically, mathematical easy thoughts and thing do not come faster on the brain. They normally neither come in the middle which is neither far nor near. To understand it is vital and important to group things that hard and simple to create the logical sense of things. We must seek instrument to enlarge our logical power of viewing things. Russell states this methodology instrument reflects the past and the future of the mathematical history and discovery. Humans should not focus on solving problems but rather expand their knowledge of understanding things. An average mathematician can distinguish number and the way they appear as whole numbers. With the basic mathematics skill, an average person will be able to differentiate that number 1 is not the first number rather than 0. Russell state of how the ancient Roman and Greeks had no 0 in their numerical list. It was further brought out by human brain taking a different direction of thinking. He states that any number is a number, but it varies with the successor that is what the same is never. The individual number in the whole world is not finite that is why we have numbers differentiating from each other. He further clarifies that if you must have logic in the proposition, then you must first have a primitive idea implemented. Principles offer no difficulty in natural numbers. It is not like geometry which is not purely analytical. Natural numbers are analytical.

In conclusion, both theories differ from each other, and the methodology of explaining things also vary in the description. Fredge and Russell have argued the theory of sense, and they both make sense to the human way of understanding, but the difference arises in the way they explain things. Fredge uses simple English compared to Russell who complexes his language and skills in elaboration things. The order of notion has great importance in mathematical learning and understanding. From fraction to integers all natural numbers has a point and power magnitude. They bring impact in the natural orders of numbers. Geometry relies on essential order through planes and lines to form a figure.

Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the website, please click below to request its removal: