Frege on Truth, Beauty and Goodness

About truth, beauty, and goodness Frauss scholars spent a lot of energy on his ideas about truth, logic, and relations between them. However, little attention has been gathered about a series of clues. Frege has repeatedly tried to clarify the relationship between logic and truth by comparing the relationship between morality and goodness with the relationship between beauty and beauty throughout his career. Of course, truth, beauty and kindness have a long history of Plato's philosophy.

As a mathematician, Frege 's interest in logic arises from his interest in the foundation of arithmetic. In the early days of his career, Frege found that the truth of arithmetic was logical, analyzing the truth, agreeing to Leibniz, and contesting Kant. And more empirical thinkers like JS Mill believe that arithmetic is based on observation. In other words, Frege agrees with logicalism. His logicalism is modest in a sense, but in other respects it is very ambitious. The logic of Frege is limited to arithmetic; unlike other important historical logic scholars like Russell, Frege does not consider geometry to be a branch of logic. But Frege's logicism is, on the contrary, very ambitious. Because he believes that people can subtract all the truths of arithmetic from a limited number of logical axioms.

The basis of mathematical truth has always been the subject of long-term debate. Frege tried to prove clearly that the arithmetic truth can be derived from a purely logical axiom, and ultimately from a logical truth (Gottlob Frege of 1884, The Foundations of Arithmetic, 1879 ). This project was developed in their Principia Mathematica by Russell and Whitehead. If parameters can be projected as symbol logic statements, they can be tested by applying approved certificates. This was done using the Panano axiom for the calculation. Nonetheless, like other areas, discussions in mathematics can only be considered valid if they can prove that they can not have real assumptions and wrong conclusions.

What is the difference between Peirce and Frege? Frege is trying to discover the truth through science. Peirce is trying to build the truth through science. What is the difference? For example, although Fregian psychoanalysts seem to be unable to understand how teachers use this truth to correct problems of achievement, they try to find the truth of student achievement through high-risk testing I will. At the same time, Peiccian psychologists are looking for ways to build and rebuild the needs of social achievement, to teach these needs, and to objectively measure and improve those needs. Both are seeking a real objective world, but only one person is trying to understand the foundation of objectivity.