- Some philosophers wonder why disjunctivism1. Why its seeming complexities and quirks? In the case of perception, Frege has a compelling answer to such questions. It gains him claim to fatherhood there. (In the case of knowledge, one might well look to Cook Wilson as parent. For singular thought, Russell will do as inspiration. In the case of one’s reasons for doing and thinking things, disjunctivism2 remains to be explored adequately.)
- My main aim here is to explore Frege’s reasons. They seem to me conclusive. A subsidiary aim is to begin to sketch some wider implications of those reasons — their general bearing on the nature of our ‘inner lives’— our enjoying of any specifiable aspect of which must, as with the careers of inanimate things, be part of what is to be met with in the environment we all share — and of our special access to these things.
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2020
- Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)