Introduction
Identity is an important issue in society because it enables members to know each other. Also, it becomes easy to differentiate individuals and objects and that is why they have different names. Some communities use names to identify the lineage of a family and thus can easily draw its ancestral line using the surnames of its members. However, some people use names without knowing their meanings because they are used to them.
This means that they know their surface meaning which may not be a good reason to use these words. However, it is important that they understand what words mean so that they can communicate effectively. Communication cannot be complete if participants assign different meanings to similar words.
This has created confusion in communication and researchers are yet to find solutions to these challenges. Gottlob Frege was a language and communication expert and he proposed various ways of solving the puzzle about identity and word usage.
Frege’s Identity Puzzle
Gottlob Frege presented the following argument to explain his puzzle of identity. He used the example of the meaning of Hesperus which means Hesperus and can also be used to refer to Phosphorus. This illustration shows that Hesperus, Hesperus, and Phosphorus have the same meaning. The meanings of these words are the same based on how they are used in different contexts.
In the second case, he used the example of the three words and explained that they have the same cognitive value. This means that a person can recognize one even if it is being described by another word. People recognize words that have the same meanings and thus they can substitute each other and make communication complete.
In the last illustration, Frege argues that these three words do not have the same cognitive value because they do not mean the same thing when it comes to their inner definitions. Therefore, Frege concluded that words may have similar meanings, but this does not mean that they should have the same cognitive values. Therefore, communication is enhanced by proper identification of words and their usage.
This means that the meaning of a word is derived from its reference and this attribute is also applicable in sentence cases even though a lot of emphases is placed on its parts. Therefore, the similarity in meaning implies sameness of cognitive values of the terms used and thus people should choose words wisely to ensure their messages are not taken out of context.
This means that the terms that Frege used have the same meanings if they are used in isolation, but their cognitive value changes when they are used together in a sentence. Frege argues that people can misinterpret the meanings of words because they do not identify their cognitive values.
Solutions to Frege’s Puzzle
Philosophy is a practice of developing arguments and influencing people to believe in concepts by offering reasonable proof to defend their points of view. Frege offered solutions to his puzzle to ensure people identify and use words properly to help them enhance their communication and understanding of messages. He used his puzzle to offer the following solutions.
First, he argues that people may reject the first case (Hesperus = Hesperus and Hesperus = Phosphorus) but not the second (Hesperus = Hesperus and Hesperus = Phosphorus) or third one (Hesperus = Hesperus and Hesperus = Phosphorus). This puzzle can be cracked by understanding that people must treat identity statements as special linguistic items and separate their meanings before joining them to know the meaning of sentences.
He proposes two ways of deciphering the meaning of the three cases in the following ways. According to him, he placed a lot of emphasis on identity statements because he believed that most words like Hesperus and Hesperus have similar meanings but Hesperus and Phosphorus do not have similar meanings. He argues that two different objects cannot be the same thing, but they can have similar meanings.
He claims that if two different objects have similar meanings than there would be no need to have two distinct objects. Therefore, this identity statement means that there is only one object that has two meanings and not two objects with one meaning. He argues that these two words mean Venus and thus it is the one object that has several meanings. Therefore, people can identify this planet by using an astronomical or common definition.
Secondly, he argues that identity statements are important because they show that the different words used to define objects do not have a direct relationship with each other. For instance, he argues that Hesperus and Phosphorus have no direct connection because no word is used to define the other. Therefore, he argues that the meaning of Hesperus and Hesperus are only related to Hesperus and Hesperus and not Hesperus and Phosphorus.
He concludes that these cases are confused because there is absolute truth in both of them and they objectively define a natural phenomenon and not the linguistic definitions that make the whole issue confusing. He refers to linguistic identity as based on the outer meaning and appearance of words and this would mean that Hesperus is Hesperus and not Phosphorus.
Another solution he presents if the compositionality failure of identity statements. He argues that even though Hesperus and phosphorus have the same meaning this is not automatic when it comes to Hesperus and Hesperus and Hesperus and Phosphorus.
There is a major challenge posed by this approach because it compels people to explain why compositionality is applicable in identity statements in language but not in the pursuit of identity of concepts and objects. Therefore, he argues that people have a difficult task of learning natural languages by learning each statement separately and then combining them to form sentences and deciphering their meanings.
This would be a very torturous journey for people that have limited ability to memorize, understand and use vocabularies for communication. In addition, the problem of ambiguity of meanings and fake phrases will not be avoidable because people will understand and use words according to the contexts of their first encounters.
However, this perception and practice are not conceivable and that is why people learn tens of thousands of words and their meanings and thus can use them to make indefinite assertions and comprehend new ones even without having prior knowledge about their usage or meaning.
Frege claims that compositionality skews linguistic for identity statements and this is his solution to the problem posed by identity statements. He claims that compositionality should be used for evaluating identity statements because it focuses on claims about language. However, the problem with this approach is that it identifies the true values of statements or terms but not their cognitive meanings.
He argues that the identity relation compels people to make assertions about the use of language, yet its context or natural meaning does not allow them to do so. Therefore, he proposed a solution that will ensure people reject the meaning of the first and second cases because they do not have inherent meanings that can be applied in the natural usage of language.
Frege’s Conclusion
He concluded that the meanings of terms used in communication are not given in their references. This means that the meanings of words do not end with what they mean, but their representation in the linguistic and cognitive fields. He argues that all terms have references and senses and this means that people should not understand their usage based on a single aspect.
This means that the reference of a term is determined by its sense and thus this complicates the linguistic references given in terms of natural languages. He referred to this sense as a mode of presentation and argues that words that have same meanings differ in cognitive values because the objects they refer to are un-informatively designated in the same presentation mode.
However, the mode of presentation is in other cases informatively designated when different words are used to refer to the same object. Another instance, explains that the meaning of terms does not go beyond their references because this is not mediated by description.
On the other hand, some critics have raised a concern about Frege’s solution to the puzzle about identity. According to his explanations, scientific statements are just informative and not analytical because they have different meanings.
Therefore, it casts doubt on the relationship between the meaning of water and H2O. His identity puzzle means that water is H2O, but H20 is not water; therefore, people can drink water but not H2O. However, this statement is not true, and this casts doubts as to whether people will ever find the meaning of words and the solutions to the puzzle of their identities.