Advertisement

Science and Fiction: A Fregean Approach

  • Gottfried GabrielEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Nordic Wittgenstein Studies book series (NRWS, volume 3)

Abstract

In Frege’s analysis of the relationship between science and fiction there are two important aspects, which the paper will discuss. It shows that Frege makes a strict distinction between Dichtung und Wissenschaft on the level of object language but not on the level of metalanguage. (1) In his “On Sense and Reference” and in scattered remarks elsewhere Frege explains the semantics (and pragmatics) of scientific and everyday discourse. As a kind of side product he presents an explication of the concept of fictional discourse concerning questions of illocutionary force and reference. Here Frege anticipates J. R. Searle’s speech-act-theory of fictional discourse, which allows to understand works of fiction as consisting (at least partly) of fictional discourse. On the basis of Frege’s distinctions this approach is defended against ontological arguments, which make use of terms like ‘fictive entities’ or ‘non-existent objects’ in the Meinongian tradition. (2) Frege excludes the connotative or figurative elements of language, called “colourings and shadings” (Färbungen und Beleuchtungen) of sense or thought, from the scientific use of language and assigns such elements to “the art of poetry” or “eloquence”. The fact that the expression ‘colouring’ is itself a figurative term, raises a paradoxical question: To what extent does understanding Frege’s own explanation of the difference between sense and colouring depend on the poetic or at least rhetoric use of language? There are reasons to believe that Frege was—even if only reluctantly—aware of this paradox. Otherwise he would not have repeatedly emphasized that explanations of categorial logical distinctions (particularly such as those between ‘function’ and ‘object’) cannot dispense with “figurative expressions” (like ‘unsaturated’ and ‘saturated’). Insofar as such distinctions are “reliant upon the accommodating understanding of the reader”, they pay tribute to a rhetoric of cognition. While Frege denies that colourings contribute to cognitive content, he must still admit that they make an indispensable protreptic contribution to conveying cognition.

Keywords

Cognitivism Emotivism Fiction Figurative language Frege Science 

References

  1. Beardsley, M. C. (1958). Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
  2. Ernesti, J. C. T. (1962a). Lexicon technologiae graecorum rhetoricae (1795). Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
  3. Ernesti, J. C. T. (1962b). Lexicon technologiae latinorum rhetoricae (1797). Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
  4. Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle: L. Nebert.Google Scholar
  5. Frege, G. (1884). Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik: Eine logisch mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl. Breslau: W. Koebner.Google Scholar
  6. Frege, G. (1892a). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50.Google Scholar
  7. Frege, G. (1892b). Ueber Begriff und Gegenstand. Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie, 16, 192–205.Google Scholar
  8. Frege, G. (1904). Was ist eine Funktion? In S. Meyer (Ed.), Festschrift Ludwig Boltzmann gewidmet zum sechzigsten Geburtstage, 20. Februar 1904 (pp. 656–666). Leipzig: J. A. Barth.Google Scholar
  9. Frege, G. (1918). Der Gedanke: Eine logische Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des Deutschen Idealismus, I(2), 58–77.Google Scholar
  10. Frege, G. (1983). Nachgelassene Schriften (2nd ed.). H. Hermes, F. Kambartel, & F. Kaulbach, (Eds.). Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
  11. Frege, G. (1997). The Frege reader. M. Beaney (Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Gabriel, G. (1975). Fiktion und Wahrheit: Eine semantische Theorie der Literatur. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
  13. Gabriel, G. (1979). Fiction—A semantic approach. Poetics, 8, 245–255.Google Scholar
  14. Gabriel, G. (1991). Zwischen Logik und Literatur: Erkenntnisformen von Dichtung, Philosophie und Wissenschaft. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gabriel, G. (1993). Fictional objects? A ‘Fregean’ response to Terence Parsons. Modern Logic, 3, 367–375.Google Scholar
  16. Gumbrecht, H. U. (2004). Production of presence: What meaning cannot convey. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kant, I. (1968). Kritik der Urteilskraft. In Kants Werke: Akademie-Textausgabe (Vol. 5). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Keller, G. (1956). Sämtliche Werke und ausgewählte Briefe (Vol. 1). C. Heselhaus (Ed.). München: Hanser.Google Scholar
  19. Lukács, G. (1967). Über die Besonderheit als Kategorie des Ästhetischen. Neuwied: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
  20. Musil, R. (1978). Briefe 1901–1942 (Vol. 2). A. Frisé (Ed.). Reinbek: Rowohlt Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Parsons, T. (1980). Nonexistent objects. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Parsons, T. (1982). Fregean theories of fictional objects. Topoi, 1(1-2), 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Quintilianus, M. F. (1995). Institutio Oratoria: Ausbildung des Redners. Zwölf Bücher. (3rd ed., H. Rahn, Trans., 2 vols). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  24. Scaliger, J. C. (1987). Poetices libri septem (1561). Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
  25. Schildknecht, C. (2002). Sense and self: Perspectives on nonpropositionality. Paderborn: mentis.Google Scholar
  26. Searle, J. R. (1975). The logical status of fictional discourse. New Literary History, 6, 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sidney, P. (1971). A defence of poetry (1595) (2nd ed.). J. A. van Dorsten (Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sutrop, M. (2000). Fiction and imagination: The anthropological function of literature. Paderborn: mentis.Google Scholar
  30. Tolstoy, L. (1978). Letter to N. N. Strachov from the 23rd and 26th April 1876. In F. Christian (Ed.), L. Tolstoy, Tolstoy’s letters (pp. 296–297). London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  31. Wittgenstein, L. (1980). Vermischte Bemerkungen/Culture and value (2nd ed.). G. H. von Wright (Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Wolff, C. H. (1996). Discursus praeliminaris de philosophia in genere. Latin-German text. G. Gawlick, & L. Kreimendahl (Eds.). Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Friedrich Schiller UniversityJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations