= = =—rt i (‘ ‘_‘ ‘(i it: Frege on Numbers: Beyond the Platonist Picture Wy erich Rak ‘Ploephy ween alk sbou Pltonam concerang three Kins of Enso, numbers o lop aojcts more general concept ot Functions mare genealyrand ought ot nse more generally wittnly be conesrned abou the st ofthese hee Lins here n pater ‘bout natura numbers. Ll soo focae mostly on Froges corresponding femart in The Foundations of amet 1880, cupplerentedby afew asides tn Bare oft (1989/905) {G9i6) My goa {niin rich age the Pepe of Fordson a Bsc Lens 4 Patnlst oncening he mature iy tsegy wile to look t Frege's Plates “incntext" To doo seems tome npn bocae size ale approach to Pltonism often Jtnds owes of atleast very ar Farkerere, reget corespondg Ves trenotnaive is wily tte (What ioaneant by “ate” here wllbecoDe ‘carchoty or that purpose willentextalie Prges Paton ates inthe ene of coidering them in connection wih Rs general approach in Fundaton and Bei Ls Connected with that wl dining to ety lifer nays invwhich Patni nite ane undestood. the “conte Fave in minds const in Frege general approach supplemented By 8 ierentise understanding of Plato Incr Eocene cf Posner Ban vs CMG thot and suggests chaaceriation of Patnr in mathemats: ‘By platen det he alt ew sno ate tml, ot SBM in ns sem nie epee ramen ing SRSA amen obe pdd ne deri of iH Recker psp a he Uoaty of Cla at [Rewrle e hs ced si he a of rly eal pop, he ‘up of mola ate Meagan poy of lege ea the “hore Peg to Wipes Peeps on ay Aap kop hy (xed ner Pree 202) ener end rl (ai S. Ane) of ‘pes Lactarcon LagieCaiten Notes OTE (Opr Ca 208, tke dh Me Bene of Col rege Cote! Aseserts of Leading hlonpers VebumestV od 2008) IKI no 205 “Ti Hao Rov or Pasar26 Erich HL Reck Frege on Numbers: Beyond the Platonist Picture 27 “a mata oni ie a em aloo ails Fieger crete pawn [EUSQULES type ahs 287 Notohow thenaturel numbers arehere desbed as abstract object thatare "iteuitnt inthe sence of eiting indepen deny of aman inking howaeperte "Platonic veld” abe’ by suck objet conjured up and owthe nathemncanisdepsied as isovrer"or "explorer ofthis tol "Tims ingeeiets ox praca, are typi for many thes, often even shots, ‘harcerratens of Pato, ‘Usually ts then sumed hatauch short characterzationsdesebe a ett phleaspieal postion Paton. Sut what they relly giveum nn) ‘nists even suggests te (wt hae led cae Teorng ikigenstein 1 metaphyial plctare’) the pete of "Paton Iporld’ or ofe Patni heaven" parallel othe World of physical objects ied oaths pict Patni tense clo and net eldom guy ‘line TA man pnt of ctu that he wen lead oan access problems that tit clear ow we ca ever gain acoso sucha Platonic Fond However formes diferen more si question aes: sti ture Tealy- define enough fora cet of lator or alo fora comresponding ‘Kets? co otthcen Rater issorstometo be ton genral vague and “Tabiguows nore on hse te). “Ate cone test hard to deny that Frege i Pltorst nthis general vaguesone, Tobe sure, he never ues the tern “Patni” ime, Endierjcs the chacacteriantion of thenatural aunbesa“sbtac obec Since e ies he underyingnoton of sbtacuon" tobe problematic But at {east tom Fundation one defends te following Plater theses nabers “Eeindepenent “opel spss’ se such they oe dee fsa mameraleand ‘ther physical object en the one hands and from mental object and payehlogeal process onthe ober hand frtbemore ated acinoe [Eehich we ster fo rach abet ith our number words and numer ‘hich we uctibe properties other, an in whic we thus make objectively {ueor foe serine Raaly fila artle"Thooghis” Frege ese ‘Se erm "thie al’ fora eal or worl of object that are neler physi porta ‘etme quotes ew othe most rec statementsFroge makes on this topic On umber as logical abject he wes in Fotos ‘est te amok ihe defn pai tye win epee SA atc es ‘a eshape est weft Ea ely otal at Te dante hn cctping sate pe wena {Phlnper sutras, lng fre oro ‘Sec arent an opto Novevery speran pae GH) nthe onetance nd objectnty of uch obecs: Fox mambe yt mt ai of rhino dat ea ray “cohen Invest mutes cnn rate ng awl ny mee tha oe (peeps cob ancy ier wht aan ge a same irae ‘And alin “Thowehts ‘hid reat mt ering lagi oe eh tn ‘Suton wh age tat ows nt Bas S8 eet 2020 blog ‘Srrms ots cmos (90 ‘War a GoM NOW? IS NOT Cea, ce HE BASS OF aE QUOTATIONS HE Froge ra Pltonin? Do vant t deny that ant enterpret hn sn Piston? No, ny gol sntesthe lowing want tov ha qucttlons ‘ichasthoee above se wel ase meta pcre Pansy conte lp, have tobe tated with core. Tht into say they requires careful ets Inexpoctation, Without uch an terpnetation mere relying on he wage pctve ofa “Piatonic heavan"~we ae dealing with “ave Plates” (0, especialy wth “alte an Patni’) Mj sain gol sto go beyond the coependegnae Tae bt te fit pram to urge fr eae inthis connection. Christian ‘Thieland, to some degree Michal Darna ued ws lend neten tes and eaiy seventies not fo rely too mach on the pctre of a Plato Ieaven"Sinc thon Gotried Cabrel hae kad repestedly about Platonic Iypostatiaton” of abstract objects and has objected to a coresponding Ieterprraton of eg’ And rece avait of nepretes especialy inthe English-speaking world, Rave begun to seimespret Frege's pulosophcal tpproacsin sucha way tha ened, non-nalve endertanding of Frog's Pitoniem i slowly begining t emerge! But what excl) devs this Mew ‘andrstanding conan or more generally, what aternativs se heenths eect? That nexaly what want tomas expickand to ly farther Inia elon “Te arfcaon Sam intrested in haste do with questions abouthow tounderstasd tone suchas abject teleenes,” th objec” ad ‘torthor better bow toexpainand late thr teacher nother Words, ‘har todo with tne question a hat phlosopeal roles played by cas $achasthesr thet nombre ae Topen objects” tat we rete” to thers With Durnumber words and that we make "trse an ale sve” about We, {Fas Hansa Renew ce Prone ‘oR no? 2005 veIME no 2005 “Ts Hamano Rew ov Paco28 rich H. Reck iy miners in th sonnet thatthe Patni icare we encountered [tyveoes nn deen thle ungly Rather, ever oom for WO Very “Aifventintrpetaton and sor to diferent ice of Pitre, or not SLiefrence, etme inteoduce nares Iwill call hap "Patnien A” and Sinton respectively? sr ro Paro AT Sam one on Ar RST BACKER, FH HE [dot tens sa esti understanding of the physical woe he wood ‘of sbjecte scar abe, char the te Tower and te Moon. The Platonis plsttesbowe snow interpreted a asserting tat numbers ae objets inthe Ee sence” hey eve ne independent have determinate popertcn, tsa forth inthe same senge” excep al hey done nab he pyc ‘word not anyone's mental weet bus separate word of barat cbc” Sichanundetandingotthe atone of ob,” "oustonce,” and soon the EuScomtlogal specter A “Gnesstoon as such inaivdual umber can ove dre be given 1: “the sumer one "the mmber i” and oo forth, Stary we an {Sidi sbout various properties of numbers abou the property tobe frente bea pune number ands nT the bate seman asp of Pistia Ac steno on ht sree chen th ath ras) {nthe bjeciiy of sithimetiesotement: For example te statment "The ‘bc four inven rrow objectively trae thecese Date ojo wich “feet lth she number four" say does have the property meaty“ Tren is explanationoftsthand abet hbase metaphyseal spe Tete make even ears and mon expisi what formy purpose ruil re Let ur ar agen wih he basi ontologieal pec toss osthave st deserved ete ots ofcalel Sobjctiveexstnen ard “ermine propery ate pespponsd ss piniv hey are fondamentl oe fpamary notions notions tat are not wally explalned themes, but Frsoppese andusdin cher enpanatonn Thy tious at ‘Misused and motivated by sppeingo pie examples suchas the ote Called “Ese Tower” hs etstence in Para Ho Height eight and so forth imply Hs presupposed ere that such objects ave “independent” and "GEemitatintenefves inthe sera hat Beirne ae he Popes {Ganda tous ae fy play) donot Sependenour essence ws observer ‘Ste thinking owledge cals om, Put bey we sar from a nso “iechood tata inspced by the paradigmatic example of piel objects (udestaod narealstsoce). “lar ae trac seman apectofPateism Alsconcered should furthermore benotes ht the naming lation or the notion of etre” ‘Coralcerodtobepriative ar wel or tlenatto Se fundamental fr hare ‘Splnation pen" Thenotimoftuthean ten te explained in asubstntee ‘ennai tu expand asco ’Andihisdlsonadstos ‘Rrresqonding nono bevy Altgeter an arlinaestatement sno Frege on Numbers: Beyondl the Platonist Picture 29 ‘ijectively tras or fale in the senee tht we can “measure” Hague Inlepenientsboract wold ofmunters--aslogosl 19 ow we "eanar” Piya stement guint anndependent relist understood py ‘oud Here eis portant to omphasoe again ha Us epee ‘SUivtnive explanation orth and sje Te roleesuchsubstaive ‘splnaton sf give Pstoniem A phlosophial "weight oF “te” “Te question Patniem A provokes neal Seow wecan ever have accas auch worl faba object I the plea cae tise {0 be sslatively unproblematic ince we are i causal contact With the cvresponding object But the “sbtrastness ofan object suchas te muse to pls tate ae pose notin cre contact with For the same ‘tno be pstlation of conesponding kindof qusssul“erepto," as ‘Ssometmnesatsbuted to atoms neste problematicas wel or how is auch a peception of abstract objects a “sth sense” soto peak ‘upped to work ot sa casa contact the ena? That seems completly ‘selee Te epstemogia sige of Patrsm Ais then realy peeler. = “Te problem can perhape er be dramatied by considering the possibty of fundamental mistake” Lets sre aga wih te parallel Repel world teen hat we canbe fondamentalysstaken about ‘hyia ests Foresanpi. ts pose tat mach, perhaps everthing we Enh we know cucenty abouts satan plane can rn ott tobe fsa es ‘renposnilethttepetusts plant docenot stata. Sal aWhale fips theory can fe ut to bs aie. The radial postopera up OF Eixcuum As dow the Thess osldbethecae for aur orlnay artnet “This osny, peshpsthete age no ntora members ater lo pethap htt ropes a handel diferent fom wnat we ave sed a Now {afin ponte ewen our ordinary arthetctsconsstent ‘Hany ayone sera fourm attri ot the case, However, the possi opens up ast in principe Beene Patni Aspens he tjcve tah tite tataments a correspondence toa completely ‘ret wor ol abet objet Whether rach cereependence lds ote! ‘Pinan conceptually indspendent from our asus! peetice of fdging and ‘Bisning Tat cna what opera the pole of fandamentl mite ‘ur aici dames ference Cane whol foretell ‘inctntoytematc ands ort but sill wrengin tear of ring oe ‘Sitwtincomploesvespondance othe poslatd word ofsbaractbjc Fuse setenv oF Puavouot A? Fr meray ap so SCALE ie marta quoted shove ae onaldere nando emeclve.Onthe oat band, wecan hicly mabeaew chsetation that call ach an interpretation Into sjueton Recall noe mone the hes basic pets of Pitre A aust ‘docibeds a envsin way of understanding “Cpethood gue bythe ‘ample of physi jets (8) the explanation of tth and object ae omespondence Sasedon such "bjecthood” and ona elated notion of “eferenc’y an (the sling problem of acs ote posaty of = ‘Tee iannso Renew or Pmoeane ‘LN no 2005 oI no 2008 “Tagan Revaw oF Poor