Introduction
Frege Gitlob was a philosopher who was instrumental in various inventions in the fields of mathematics, science, and philosophy. Some of his main achievements include the creation of the primary axiomatic system, the invention of the contemporary logic of quantification, and the definition of identity.
In his definition of identity, he argues that for enhanced understanding, a person has to get a clarity of the object and the reference denoting it. According to him, an object has a reference and logic of the expression. In his view, reference means the statement used to refer to the object, while the logic of expression implies how people describe the object in question. Therefore, it is within this background that the essay analyzes Frege’s solution to the identity puzzle.
Frege’s Concept of Identity
According to Frege, an object has two components, reference, and sense, which help in its identity. In his argument, he uses Venus, which refers to the morning star, as well as the evening star. Frege states that the evening and the morning stars refer to the planet Venus, but the senses behind these references are different. In one of the instances, individuals refer to the planet as a star that appears in the morning, whereas in another instance, the planet implies a star that is visible in the morning.
The identity puzzle described by Frege elucidates that an object receives informative and analytic identities. Therefore, according to him, a line of distinction is evident in the presentation of the identity of an object basing on sense or reference.
Frege also explains that the distinction is not limited to objects only, but it extends to elements like propositions, numbers, and even sentences. He points out that the identity of these elements is clear when there is truth-value in the presentations accorded to the subject element. Also, Frege highlights that identity refers to functions, which require solutions. For instance, the square root of a certain number yields an outcome that refers to a given function after solving the problem, and thus, functions refer to unfinished expressions.
In his assertion, Frege explains that the identity of an object is analytic when expression refers to the same thing, for example, morning star = morning star. Comparatively, an identity of an object is informative when expression uses different expressions in referring to the same object, for example, morning star = evening star.
By stating that the sense of an object that is not prior is informative, Frege explains that the reader acquires a certain level of knowledge. The knowledge acquired by the individual emanates from the additional knowledge that the morning star is also the evening star.
In elucidating the concept of identity, Frege outlines that humans possess a wealth of thoughts transferred from one generation to another. These thoughts dictate the concepts of identities that objects receive and how the individuals express them in society. Thus, diversity emerges from individuals since they determine the identity of an object using different senses.
To elaborate on this diversity, Frege uses an example of a telescope and individuals viewing an object. In his example, he outlines that even if individuals use the telescope simultaneously, they will have a different vision of the object in question.
Thus, individuals can refer to a similar object using different senses basing on their backgrounds and socio-cultural affiliations. According to Frege, the difference appears from the paintings, coloring, and other styles that people use in bringing out the real identity of an object basing on what they see or hear.
Frege’s Conclusions on the Concept of Identity
In concluding the identity puzzle, Frege asserts that the identity of an object has the reference and the sense. He explains that although individuals demonstrate a diversity of sense when referring to the identity of an object, the truth-value presented by the object helps solve the identity puzzle. According to Frege, the truth-value clarifies whether the reference according to an object is true or false, depending on its analytical or informative nature.
The analytical nature of an object implies the state at which individuals determine the identity of an object without any research. Conversely, if the identity of an object introduces some information acquired from research, the identity of the object displays an informative nature. The informative nature facilitates the acquisition of a certain amount of knowledge among the people, who mention or hear the identity of the object.
From Frege’s argument, it is clear that informative and analytical identity of an object demonstrates some key factors. These factors include the ability of the component of reference to educate or provide knowledge and the capacity of the component of sense to provide information through further studies or research made by people. In Frege’s assertions, singular terms need to demonstrate some form of meaning that transcends the component of reference.
In his belief, Frege holds the perception that if an object has a similar reference, the similarity should be evident through the ability of the references to replace one another without loss of truth-value. For instance, if one refers to Venus as a morning star, and another one states that Venus is the evening star, the two references should have the capacity of referring to the same object. Failure to demonstrate a similarity in reference of the object implies that the references are not useful in determining the identity of an object.
Critics of Frege’s Concept of Identity
Some of the critics to Frege’s philosophy of identity explain that the argument presented by Frege has various shortcomings that challenge its functionality in the practical world. Among the criticism advanced against Frege’s solution to the identity puzzle is the fact that some of his explanations are not true. For instance, when Frege alludes that a = a, he implies that by logic alone, an individual can discern the truth in the concept.
According to the argument, Frege holds a straightforward opinion that the concept of a = a does not call for any scientific or academic research since it is explicit. The opinion also clarifies that the concept of a = b requires scientific or academic research to ascertain its truth-value. However, in some instances, the concepts held in his argument proved to be wrong.
For instance, a calculation such as five plus five is equal to ten does not require any research and is an informal expression. This explains that an object can possess an analytic identity or informative identity without any extensive research contrary to Frege’s philosophy.
Another argument advanced by critics of the identity puzzle presented by Frege emerges from the field of science. Critics explain that Frege argues that water is not H2O and that H2O does not refer to water. Conversely, water is indeed H2O, and H2O is water. The fact that water is H2O does not meet the criteria of Frege, who asserts that the identity of an object requires both informative and analytical components.
As a result, the disqualification occurs because the explanation that water is H2O does not have an analytical or an informative background as stated by Frege. Also, the explanation demonstrates variance in terms of sense, unlike in Frege’s solution of the identity puzzle. Therefore, the explanation challenges the practical nature of the philosophy advanced by Frege concerning the identity of objects and other elements.
In Frege’s solution to the identity puzzle, the analytical identify (a = a) does not require any scientific or academic research, whereas informative identity (a = b) calls for research. In the puzzle, the complexity occurs when Frege states that if a = a, then a = b is true. In elaborating his argument, Frege states that Aristotle, who was the student of Plato and the trainer of Alexander, would not have been Aristotle if Plato had not thought him.
Consequently, Alexander could not have been there if Aristotle had not thought him. He states that Aristotle = student of Plato = teacher of Alexander the Great, and he explains that if the scenario was not different, then the individual in question would not have become Aristotle. However, even if Aristotle had not been the trainer of Alexander or the student of Plato, he would still have become Aristotle since that was his identity. Therefore, the argument challenges the relevance of the identity puzzle in elucidating human identity.
Conclusion
Frege was among the philosophers, who tried to unmask the puzzle of identity. According to Frege, objects should have the analytic and informative components. The analytic component expresses logic, while the informative component offers education.
In his view, Frege believes that an object is informative if its sense educates people, but an object is analytic if its reference expresses logic. Conversely, like other philosophies advanced by past scholars, the philosophy of identity has its shortcomings that challenge its relevance in the present world.