Hi Halcro,
Before Nandric jumps in with his view, I'd just like to say that I have not meant to detract from the main subject of this post with my last comment and am sorry if I have.
I am not familiar enough with Frege (the 'extent' or impact of the supposed limitations of his mathematic on his luiguistic rationalism; the 'extent' and differences between his concept of 'logic', etc) to criticise his approach and thinking. For me, such difference in thinking still stands as a key and inevitable aspect of philosophy. Nor am I, as has been suggested elsewhere, a Kantian or Hegelian.
For those interested, I would never advocate standing under the banner of any one thinker and I realise that things are rarely as simple or clear cut as might be wished: 'http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege/'.
Apologies for this final abstraction and I continue to follow (and, hopefully, contribute to) the developments on this thread with real interest.
As always...
Before Nandric jumps in with his view, I'd just like to say that I have not meant to detract from the main subject of this post with my last comment and am sorry if I have.
I am not familiar enough with Frege (the 'extent' or impact of the supposed limitations of his mathematic on his luiguistic rationalism; the 'extent' and differences between his concept of 'logic', etc) to criticise his approach and thinking. For me, such difference in thinking still stands as a key and inevitable aspect of philosophy. Nor am I, as has been suggested elsewhere, a Kantian or Hegelian.
For those interested, I would never advocate standing under the banner of any one thinker and I realise that things are rarely as simple or clear cut as might be wished: 'http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege/'.
Apologies for this final abstraction and I continue to follow (and, hopefully, contribute to) the developments on this thread with real interest.
As always...