[FOM] Second-order logic and neo-logicism

[Panu Raatikainen]

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

Panu




-- 
Panu Raatikainen

Ph.D., Adjunct Professor in Theoretical Philosophy

Theoretical Philosophy
Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies
P.O. Box 24  (Unioninkatu 38 A)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland

E-mail: panu.raatikainen at helsinki.fi

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/praatika/