Philip A. Ebert (Stirling)
This paper has two aims: first to characterise four different solutions to the problem of analysis and show how these affect in fundamental ways an interpretation of Frege’s logicist project. Second, to offer a defence of an often-neglected view — called the (term by term) reference preservation view of analysis — against numerous criticisms, most notably those offered by Blanchette (2012). These criticisms center on the claim that there seems to be a certain degree of arbitrariness in Frege’s definition of number. In response, I will distinguish three different charges of arbitrariness and argue that each can me met.
Part of the UConn History of Analytic Philosophy Workshop.