Second-Order Abstraction Before and After Russell’s Paradox

Matthias Schirn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198712084.003.0017

2019-09-11

Abstract:In this article, I discuss certain aspects of Frege’s paradigms of second-order abstraction principles, Hume’s Principle and Basic Law V, with special emphasis on the latter. I begin by arguing that, contrary to a widespread view, Frege did not express any dissatisfaction with Basic Law V before 1902. In particular, he did not raise any doubt about its assumed logical nature. I then show why Frege nonetheless fails to justify Basic Law V as a primitive logical truth along the lines of the semantic justification that he provides for the other axioms of his system. In subsequent sections, I argue (a) that Frege could not have chosen Hume’s Principle as a logical axiom, neither before 1902 nor after 1902; (b) that even if in the wake of Russell’s Paradox Frege had accepted Hume’s Principle as a logical axiom, such an axiom could not have replaced Basic Law V which was designed to introduce logical objects of a fundamental and irreducible kind and to afford us the right cognitive access to them; (c) that Frege most likely held that the two sides of Basic Law V express different thoughts; (d) that for Basic Law V or for any other Fregean abstraction principle that is laid down as an axiom of a theory, the case in which both real epistemic value and self-evidence are given their due is ruled out. I make a proposal as to how Frege might have escaped this epistemic dilemma.