[FOM] Second-order logic and neo-logicism
panu.raatikainen at helsinki.fi
Fri Mar 27 12:50:45 EDT 2015
Just a brief comment:
I always thought these issues must be more or less clear for competent
people like Burgess, Heck and Linnebo (though I don't think they
express the critical points very clearly in their publications (at
least the ones I know)).
However, I've had quite a lot of transaction with, e.g., British
philosophers and, believe me, these issues are not at all clear to
many of them - on the contrary, what I say seems to be almost a
scandal for many. My paper is directed to them, and is a response to,
e.g., Wright 2007.
I was simply trying to spell out as clearly as possible what I think
are the relevant logical facts. I don't want to pretend I have
anything really new to say for the real experts.
All the Best
Ph.D., Adjunct Professor in Theoretical Philosophy
Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies
P.O. Box 24 (Unioninkatu 38 A)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
E-mail: panu.raatikainen at helsinki.fi
More information about the FOM