@misc{Lexicon of Arguments, title = {Quotation from: Lexicon of Arguments – Concepts - Ed. Martin Schulz, 29 Mar 2024}, author = {Geach,Peter}, subject = {Copula}, note = {I 221 Copula/Geach: if you understand concept and object correctly, you do not need the copula. >Concept/Geach, >Concept/Frege, >Object, >Object/Frege. Instead, you can use "falls under". - (In ancient times it was also handled like this). >Ancient philosophy. "is": ((s) "is a" suggests false identity (at most partial identity, i.e. classification). >"Is", >Identity, >Identification, >Classification. Frege late: VsFrege early: nor "falls under". "is a"/Frege: does not mean "belongs to a class"! "Is a..."/Geach: is no logical relation between an x and an object (class) called "human." >Prediation/Geach, >Predication, >Attribution. Complex Expression/Geach: "A person is wise" is a complex expression that needs to be split (analyzed): into "person" and ".... is wise". Accordingly, Frege's remark "the concept of man" (which is not supposed to be a concept) is to be divided: E.g., "The concept of man is realized" does not assert of a particular object that it is realized. To say that a certain object, e.g. Caesar, is realized does not lead to falsity (as Frege believed) but is nonsense. (GeachVsFrege). >Senseless, >Truth value gap. The sentence splits into "Man" and "The concept ... is realized". The latter is a paraphrase of "something is a...". Sentences that cannot be analyzed in this innocent way must be considered meaningless. >Sentences/Geach, cf. >Saturated/unsaturated/Frege. E.g., "The concept of man is timeless".}, note = { Gea I P.T. Geach Logic Matters Oxford 1972 }, file = {http://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=241788} url = {http://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=241788} }