Dear Prof. I am a buddhist, and studied buddhist philosophy in some depths with, in my estimation, authentic traditional teachers (I spend years in India and Nepal, learned tibetan language etc.). I now work as a translator of buddhist text, an interpreter for buddhist teachers and moved back to my home country Austria. I decided to start pursuing a BA in Philosophy (maybe even an MA) on the side... and I got very interested in the analytical tradition. There are a handful of western trained philosophers who started a cross cultural dialogue between the western tradition (specially the analytic branch) and buddhism. I find their work very interesting and hopefully will gain the "know how" to really understand whats going on there - I started studying formal logic, something that is not coming easy - but your lectures, giving me a bit more about the theory and application of modern logic, is very helpful - thank you! I will slowly work my way through this series

As a layperson, I didn't catch much after the twenty minute mark, but I am so thankful that this lecture can be accessed for free.

Glad you mentioned Grave of the Fireflies! Miyazaki is great!

7:46 Contrary to the modern meaning of 'proper name', which is restricted to personal names like John Smith, Frege uses the term 'proper name' for any unambiguous way of naming an individual thing. So, according to Frege, "the evening star" is also a proper name

You’re just the best! Thank you for doing your talks out of your home (nice!) in Austin during these Covid-19 days.

So to recap this very informative lecture the statement " a = a " doesnt tell us much because s(a) = s(a) and r(a) = r(a), but the statement " a = b " tells us something new, because s(a) ≠ s(b) but r(a) = r(b), where s(t) and r(t) are the sense and referent of the the term t, respectively.

Thank you mister Daniel, I´ve enjoyed the lecture and by the way it help me a lot! Saludos desde Chile

A pleasure to be taught Frege by Steve Martin

Thank you very much for your work. There should be more people putting lectures on youtube. Love from Germany

Thank you for positing this excellent lecture; it was very helpful in increasing my understanding of Frege.

very very thanks prof. Daniel, your lectures are a memorable learning experience. thanks for the effort you put in to be so interactive. kindly try with a mic. for a better sound. thanks a lot.

Thanks for this great lecture, keep up the great work!

morning star and evening star had never been the same among ancient Greeks, although both of them refer to the same planet "Venus" . Originally, it is not a star, but it's a planet. I mean in their minds they were two different things. Later, it was discovered be the same thing. So, in Greeks' minds, they were two different things with two references and two senses. After discovering that they are the same Venus, now they are with one reference but still with two senses. The first is when seen in the morning, the second sense is when seen in the evening, although both of them are referring to one thing.

How I think of words is that every word has a reference (if intended) but not every word has a sense. For eg. 'John' (or any name that has no meaning and only acts a symbol for representation) is a reference without any sense, but the word 'boy' has both a sense and many existing referents. In the example given by Frege, both the phrases 'the morning star' and 'the evening star' have a sense and only one referent (even though the referent need not to be one).

Synecdoches are a good example, using a part for the whole, e.g. "the Crown" to refer to either a King or Queen or the monarchy. Saying "my wheels" for "my car." And so on.

Professor, do you use the word referent and reference interchangeably? If so, do they mean the objects that a word refers to? Thank you. You clarified some of the points that I could not understand just by reading Frege.

thanks sir it's very helpful for me

It is not that the reference makes sense but that the reference is about the sense. Frege refers to Sinn und Bedeutung, tjhis last word meaning meaning as reference refers but sense makes sense being ultimately the basis of experience. All of Frege's work was directed to proving arithmetic logical but in spite the unsuccessful attempts, he became the father of symbolic logic and helped develop Liebnizs' dream of a universal language so that there are three universal languages, mathematics, music and symbolic logic. The reference of the sense is not the sense of the reference e. g. standing by the sea shore a person can see a ship in the horizon but a sailor standing on the ship sees the horizon a little farther away. The analytical philosopher faces the same problem the empiricists and rationalists faced with the further advantage that the analytical philosopher can bring into play a more exact language of expression, symbolic logic. And the effort to go beyond equivocation and the ambiguity of ordinary language pays off as neither the empiricist, the rationalist or the analytical philosopher have successfully resolved the issue. Even Frege himself confessed that neither the word Sinn nor Bedeutung could be understood in isolation. Let's outlaw enforced solitary confinement and accept only voluntary solitary confinement.

Thank you Sir😊

There was a question in ongoing lecture that is there any two expression which have same sense? I think two expression which have same senses can't be discussed. Sense is thought. When we think about that thought, thought becomes subjective condition of my mind. Reference can be the same & discussed. Morning star & evening star both are referring to the Venus & that's quite visible or objective. That's why reference consists truth value in Frege Philosophy.

How does one make sense of a reference work? Questions like this makes it easy to see how bedeutung (meaning) could be reference. Sinn und Bedeutung to Tractatus Philosophicus is moving from sense to nonsense. The relationship of a part to the whole is not the same as the relation of a member to a class of which it is a member. Wittgenstein nonsense stems from missing this important point. Keeping this in mind, may help to understand better Wittgenstein's posthumous publications. But that in itself will be a step to understand how it is that the Analytical philosophers of the XXth century e.g. Bertrand Russell failed to resolve once and for all the problems raised by rationalism and empiricism. Theoretically truth may actually be unnecessary in proof as it appears in self-reference questions, "I'm a liar."

Grave of the fireflies is an Isao Takahata movie, not miyazaki!

Dear professor and colleagues, if a sense is something objective and outside the mind (you would say intrinsically within the object, such as the evening star is that thing in the sky that shines in the evening and the morning star is that thing that shines and the dawn) or a plato's form: 1) How can we have access to it? 2) How we know it is objective and not inside the mind, such as sense being the way a thing is presented can be understood as how I perceive such a thing?

I'm going to need to watch this again, or get a big picture explanation of the concept. I think when things look at the parts in detail I lose where I am in the whole. The batman example and the morning star examples didn't help me understand better. I was able to stay with it though cause you're so entertaining and sometimes step back from the mathematical formula. Using maths formulas to explain language is confusing for me.

25:17 bookmark

How could it be that the referents of firefly and lighting-bug are the same if we are using different words to refer to them? I can see how the senses would be the same. Also what exactly is the difference between a term and the refferent of the term? I always thought referrent means the term we use to pick out an object, for example a name would be such a referring term as I understand it.

Would sentence such as "York is north of London" and "London is south of York" have the same reference, but have different senses?

Great video, although I think you are conflating "reference" + "referent".

Is sense an aspect of ignorance?

Thanks for your lectures, Professor. One suggestion, sometimes you just have to say "Wrong" to your students, and thereby save a lot of time. Love your content just the same. Your lectures have been a breakthrough for me.

LOL "Boo! You're not scientific! Get out of here!"

I'm lost in the second half

Sir Daniel, our Professor ask us, WHAT IS MEANING FOR GOTTLOB FREGE. Can you give answer/answers to this question :)

I enjoy your classes. Do you have any women in your class?

an useful example: America occupied Iraq . Russia Occupied Ukraine. both sentences used Occupation . The same reference , However I believe Occupation in Iraq was to liberate Iraq from a murderer called Sadam Housein. Occupation of Ukraine is to crackle down on democracy.

Why philosophers are unable to give convenient examples of what they say. I like your lecture, but examples are not enough. The examples given here are also taken from Frege's works. what about new modern examples.

04:45 Yea, none of that fake math makes any sense. You never even properly defined sense and reference. Variables and equations in philosophy? Why would you taint it? How can you "multiply" (of) an idea by another idea? Idk how "equations" like this are supposed to help us understand the concept.

This professor supports Trump

Shame on Trum supporter