These are tough questions that I hope John will reflect on in the show.

When I write, language greatly influences my thought. When I speak, that influence is reverted to subconscious channels for the most part as I don’t have a spell checker, references, and Fregean circumstance inherent in the writing process. I rarely read back my spoken word though I unlock emotion in myself and others at times in speech which gives me pause. Now, we too often talk into the void of switched-off video or with the confidence of our pandemic bubble mates. Frege’s detour is felt more in the written word than the spoken language? The medium of language is essential to this question.

As much as language influences thought, not so much emotion and experience. Languages change at different rates, especially once written. In Iceland, they write and read the exact language of their epic literature that predates Christianity (going back to the 10th century.) I doubt Icelandic thought has been frozen as long. However, there might be a consistency there that I am not appreciating.

Language doesn’t determine the circumstance of your birth, experiences, or necessarily your culture. Most importantly, it doesn’t specify the roles you take in your thought. I don’t strictly follow what John says when he talks about roles or characters or why they are necessary. I would follow more on that.

If fewer and fewer languages are spoken, thought is less and less unique? If you count computer languages and math proofs and papers, perhaps there is a change in medium and projection to social and work space rather than a loss in outright thought. Frege’s unique notation is a burst of creativity that has sparked tremendous innovation – tools for thinking and intuition.

Frege was limited in his thought by his culture and times and his focus on Math. Geometry was still the crucible of mathematical thinking. Only in his lifetime did the work of Rieman and Weierstrass make analytical what Descartes put to paper. For Frege, that geometrical concept of perfection and eternity held back his thought to the imperfect languages and reflexive reference that could have deepened his theory. At the same time, John’s take here is logically less powerful and not Mathematical at all.

It is good that this show follows Christopher Lehrich’s presentation of Occultism, in which he mentions the Adamic language. There is an occult idea that a language of creation exists, and divinity even, that has power and insight taken up in Western philosophy and religion. Frege took a giant leap that has put Russell, Wittgenstein, and Godel on a quest that didn’t quite get us to the same place. John makes good headway and adds honest insight into the precursors that perhaps held Frege back.

Logic is the foundation of math, along with observations of geometry. It was around Frege’s time that the topology was formulated. The power of Math to solve logical questions like Euler’s seven bridges problem hinted at a corollary power were language to be understood from a logical foundation. Frege’s notation is mind-warping, if not perfect. There are no ideal natural languages. Current models of language are far from complete even as much of the written corpus has been mined, and everyday speech is heavily surveilled – that was the purpose of Googles’ 411 services in the day and Snowden’s message in the now.

Not all numbers can be manipulated in logic and still retain meaning. Still, whole fields of math extended through sense have later turned out to have application. Where there is causality, there is a need for logic and number. If reality is not derivative of math and logic, causality is the lynchpin between logic and math.

I read Frege’s Detour and am trying to answer the show questions in a quick hitter that is instead turning into a novel… I hope the show goes to some of these places. I heart this book.

I am in agreement with limitations based on culture, science and time. Our overall advancement can hardly surpass these circumstances. Some thinkers have surmounted such limitations, but, mostly, giants have had to stand on shoulders. Having read about Frege, i may now read him. Don't think it will change my view much. But, I will try to jooms it---jump out of my space.

And, (I got interrupted), the trouble with philosophy is philosophers. It is intractable really. As much as truth. Surely equal to ethics, morality and the rest of those ideals we can never make our minds up about. I mean, WE posited the concepts, tried to codify reasonings. But, then, could not settle on codification(s). If you can't always get what you want, and, don't always want what you get, is there any point in trying? Must we 'go through the motions'? 'Keep up appearances'? I assert that is a ruse.
A foundation for that most human of disservice, lies.. So we stumble and fumble;...wonder why things just don't turn out right. The secret? We set ourselves to failure. And deny that, to hell and back... What a laugh.

Harold,

Prosperity does not allow one to cheat on their sexual partner no matter how successful Billy Joel may be in his life. The relative wealth of our generation does not validate our choices or moral judgments.

哲学家是问题所在吗?约翰·佩里在这里提供了一个解决罗素理发挑战的方法，大多数哲学家思考弗雷格的观点，并没有忽视它们。弗雷格很有创造力，远远领先于他的时代。他没有实现更大的目标并不意味着他的想法毫无价值。

The project is to add logical rigor to math and language, decode our thought, and build artificial intelligence… drink beer! (or bow down to the one you serve!) No one here is setting themselves to fail.

I’m not sure if you weren’t intending on posting this to Neil’s Religion post? This is off-topic and not relevant here. Am I wrong? It looks like you were rushed/interrupted.

Frege was a purported anti-semite. Billy Joel’s dad was a holocaust survivor. Is that where you are going here?

无论哪种情况，弗雷格都不是一个值得嘲笑的对象。

You are right. I only know of Frege what I have seen written by others, mostly good. For a majority, philosophers probably are doing the best they can with what they have and know. I willingly grant that much. There are other ideas, however, which seem unfounded, or at best, poorly constructed. I have spouted off on some those---to the displeasure of many. The treatments of so-called microaggression; envy as virtue; and that outworn adjective, awesome and its' noun, awesomeness.
These posts left me disappointed. Well. You can't please everyone. Thanks for setting me straight on philosophy as a discipline. My vision of things goes sometimes, crosseyed. Through this, I think I confirmed some things I have suspected about the way(s) PT presents topics and why it is those are re-addressed. It is a logical sort of formula---appears to meet needs:, if and only if, newer theses on older takes conform with facts which have not changed. The panpsychism surge has not impressed this old dog.

Fair enough. I don't read the original works if there is a book on a philosopher.

但在肯的推荐下，我读了约翰·斯图亚特·密尔的《论自由》第三章和第四章为罗伯·赖克的慈善节目做准备以理解罗伯和密尔在生活理念上的实验。这是有史以来最清晰、最坚定的哲学。

Frege is a translation nightmare. Real differences in meaning depending on how you take it. John got into that a bit.

几年前，有一个叫“十五分钟哲学家”的网页。我过去经常检查一下。这一观点的主要原则之一是“环境决定一切”。我还没有试图对弗雷格提出的制度进行怀疑，因此我无法对它的“差异”提出意见。根据我对他试图做的事情所知不多，我推断他的目标是脱离公认的逻辑模式。这是个不错的方法，如果一个人想获得不同的观点——不同的结果，独立于之前得到的结果。
I am not saying it was good, bad, correct or incorrect. Just different. And, we know it is easier to go with the status quo than to blaze new trails. (I remembered, several years later, the Fifteen Minute folks' emphasis on context. Cannot find the blog now.)

Whatever Frege's rationale, one point is salient: if one wants something different, one must step outside of current systems. Contexts imply certain rules. It seems Frege had had enough of that.
但是，我有点跑题了。我断言有一种东西叫做语境现实。它不是唯一的一种，但在近期(哈哈)已经变得越来越重要，为各种原因和分裂提供了双腿。至于弗雷格的想法，所有这些举动都有风险。我认为他没有考虑太多背景，因为它也有缺陷。我认为他的想法不完美。然而，这可能并非不可能。可调整的，不是不可描述的，或者类似的。我们需要弗雷格这样的思想家——特立独行的人;自由的精神; unconstrained independents willing to risk. I have been doing my best for a quarter century or so. As I understand it, there is a new book out now. It was written by an Englishwoman. It is titled, The Fifteen Minute Philosopher. Context is not everything, no. Evidence suggests we have made it, rather, too much. (No apologies, Professor Dennett...)

“数学和逻辑之间的关系是什么?”这可能是一个“正确的问题”。蒂姆·史密斯指出，弗雷格作品的翻译是一场噩梦。意义变得困惑。我可能是错的，但在我看来，逻辑和数学是相互独立的——在名誉扫地的斯蒂芬·j·古尔德(Stephen J. Gould)的不重叠的教法之后。就像科学和宗教一样。但是，等一下。如果我没弄错的话，有些逻辑是无法用数学来证明的，相反，有些数学支持的"真理"表面上看是违背逻辑的。民间智慧(又是这个词)认为我们不能两全其美。这是一个永恒的谜题，还是我们宁愿采用奥卡姆的扫帚而忽略它?感谢Tim, Josh和Ray帮我考虑这个问题。 Two last questions: does this mean logic and math are contrapuntal? If so, are they supposed to be?