Search

This Element addresses the viability of categoricity arguments in philosophy by focusing with some care on the specific conclusions that a sampling of prominent figures have attempted to draw – the same theorem might successfully support one such conclusion while failing to support another. It begins with Dedekind, Zermelo, and Kreisel, casting doubt on received readings of the latter two and highlighting the success of all three in achieving what are argued to be their actual goals. These earlier uses of categoricity arguments are then compared and contrasted with more recent work of Parsons and the co-authors Button and Walsh. Highlighting the roles of first- and second-order theorems, of external and internal theorems, the Element concludes that categoricity arguments have been more effective in historical cases that reflect philosophically on internal mathematical matters than in recent questions of pre-theoretic metaphysics.

For Wittgenstein mathematics is a human activity characterizing ways of seeing conceptual possibilities and empirical situations, proof and logical methods central to its progress. Sentences exhibit differing 'aspects', or dimensions of meaning, projecting mathematical 'realities'. Mathematics is an activity of constructing standpoints on equalities and differences of these. Wittgenstein's Later Philosophy of Mathematics (1934–1951) grew from his Early (1912–1921) and Middle (1929–33) philosophies, a dialectical path reconstructed here partly as a response to the limitative results of Gödel and Turing.

Search Results

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

2 results

Philosophical Uses of Categoricity Arguments

Wittgenstein's Philosophy of Mathematics

Search Results

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

Save Search

2 results

Philosophical Uses of Categoricity Arguments

Wittgenstein's Philosophy of Mathematics