Atomic propositions and their properties are the core of the philosophy of language. To define atomic propositions, it is necessary to clarify their nature. To this end, Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein tried to understand the nature of atomic propositions by examining their unity. The question of the unity of atomic propositions has not been uniformly resolved, however. Frege and Russell largely agreed on the category and role of propositions, thinking that the object represented by a proposition is a Platonic abstract entity, but they had different understandings of the unity of propositions. Wittgenstein took a different approach, holding that the object of a proposition representation is the linguistic picture entity. Based on this understanding, the problem of examining the unity of atomic propositions becomes the problem of examining the representation form and content of the proposition, thus avoiding the formal ontology of propositions. Atomic propositions are the basic unit formed by the cognitive subject in the activity of representing the world, and their nature is the unity of the transcendental intentionality of the cognitive subject and the experiential activity.
References
[1]
Candlish, S. (2007). The Russell/Bradley Dispute and Its Significance for Twentieth Century Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230800618
[2]
Davidson, D. (2008). Truth and Predication. Harvard University Press.
[3]
Du, S. H. (2019). Wittgenstein and His “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”—A Detailed Examination. Contemporary Foreign Language Studies, No. 5, 72-84. (In Chinese)
[4]
Frege, G. (1951). On Concept and Object. Mind, 60, 168-180. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LX.238.168
[5]
Frege, G. (1960). On the Foundations of Geometry. The Philosophical Review, 69, 3-17. https://doi.org/10.2307/2182264
[6]
Frege, G. (1979). Notes for Ludwig Darmstaedter. In H. Hermes, F. Kambartel, & F. Kaulbac (Eds.), Posthumous Writings (pp. 253-257). The University of Chicago Press.
[7]
Frege, G. (1997). Begriffsschrift, a Formula Language of Pure Thought Modelled on That of Arithmetic. In M. Beaney (Ed.), The Frege Reader (pp. 47-78). Hoboken: Blackwell.
[8]
Hanks, P. (2022). Propositions, Predication, and Assertion. In P. Stalmaszczyk (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Philosophy of Language (pp. 349-365). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108698283.020
[9]
Morris, M. (2008). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Wittgenstein and the Tractatus. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203003091
[10]
Russell, B. (1903). The Principles of Mathematics. The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation Ltd.
[11]
Russell, B. (1904). Meinong’s Theory of Complexes and Assumptions. Mind, 13, 204-219. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIII.1.204
[12]
Russell, B. (1907). On the Nature of Truth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 7, 28-49. https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/7.1.28
[13]
Russell, B. (1992). A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203987292
[14]
Russell, B. (2009a). On the Nature of Truth and Falsehood. In B. Russell (Ed.), Philosophical Essays (pp. 140-152). Routledge Classics.
[15]
Russell, B. (2009b). Principles of Mathematics. Routledge Classics.
[16]
Sacchi, E. (2006). Fregean Propositions and Their Graspability. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 72, 73-94. https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-072001004
[17]
Soames S. (2010). What Is Meaning? Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400833948
[18]
Soames, S. (2014). Why the Traditional Conceptions of Propositions Can’t Be Correct. In J. C. King, S. Soames, & J. Speaks (Eds.), New Thinking about Propositions (pp. 25-44). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693764.003.0003
[19]
Wittgenstein, L. (1961). Notebooks, 1914-1916. Harper.
[20]
Wittgenstein, L. (1973). Letters to C. K. Ogden with Comments on the English Translation of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicu. Basil Blackwell.
[21]
Wittgenstein, L. (2021). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: Centenary Edition. Anthem Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv22d4t7n
