Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Frege's Basic Law V commits to the existence of a set for... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Frege's Basic Law V cannot be true

    Frege's Basic Law V commits to the existence of a set for every predicate

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    A set cannot both be and not be a member of itself simultaneouslyFrege's Basic Law V cannot be trueIf Basic Law V holds, there must exist a set R of all sets that are not members ...Set R is a member of itself if and only if R is not a member of itself
    +1 moreShow less
    The predicate 'x is not a member of itself' is a well-formed predicate

    Similar

    The existence of a set necessitates the existence of any of its member...79%If Basic Law V holds, there must exist a set R of all sets that are no...79%The set {Socrates, Plato} exists when both Socrates and Plato exist78%A set that contains everything would already include all its own subse...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: analytic-synthetic
    View source passageHide passage
    The most immediately calamitous challenge to Logicism was, however, the famous paradox Russell raised for one of Frege’s crucial axioms, his prima facie plausible “Basic Law V” (sometimes called “the unrestricted Comprehension Axiom”), which had committed him to the existence of a set for every predicate. But what, asked Russell, of the predicate x is not a member of itself? If there were a set for that predicate, that set itself would be a member of itself if and only if it wasn’t; consequently

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective