Can anyone guess what I’m doing?

I think one of the major differences between a real philosopher and an undergraduate is that the real philosopher doesn’t look at

Explain Frege’s puzzle about identity. What is Frege’s distinction between sense and reference, and how is (sic) this distinction supposed to account for the informativeness of some identity claims? Is Frege’s account of the informativeness of identity claims adequate?


and think to themselves “how the heck do I get 5 pages out of that?” At moments like these, I join the non-philosopher in thinking that philosophy just teaches you how to complicate the obvious.

Advertisements

Comments are closed.