Write a paper (6-8 pp. or 1800-2400 words) in which you discuss an issue concerning one of the works read in the Beaney anthology.

• This issue may be either (i) a question of how Frege is to be understood (i.e., an issue of interpretation) or (ii) a philosophical or logical issue about which Frege has something to say.

• You should give substantial attention to Frege’s views even in the case of a philosophical or logical issue, but you may give substantial attention also to your own views.

• You should consider a position independent of Frege’s. In the case of a philosophical or logical issue, this is most naturally an objection to Frege’s stand on the issue. In the case of an interpretive issue, it is most naturally a question or objection concerning something Frege appears to say that raises the issue of how to understand him.

• You should include a further development of Frege’s views in response to the question or objection. In the case of an interpretive issue, this will be the interpretation of his views that is the main substance of your essay. In the case of a philosophical or logical issue, this should be a reply that Frege or someone sympathetic to him might make to the objection you consider.

If you have difficulty finding a topic, I will be glad to help. Much of what Frege has to say in this part of his work is not presented as a position on a controversial issue, so you will often need to think beyond Frege to see the sort of questions or objections that might be raised.

You can find some ideas along these lines in material from Phi 349. For example, each of Russell and Quine expressed views that imply objections (different ones) to Frege’s idea of sense in general, and Kripke and Putnam expressed views that imply objections to his views on the sense of proper names (and, in the case of Putnam, about his view that sense determines reference or Bedeutung). Wittgenstein had great respect for Frege, but he rarely adopted his ideas without changing them considerable, so comparing Wittgenstein’s views to Frege’s can also be a source of questions and objections.

You can find further ideas in the secondary literature (such as the paper by McDowell that we will read), and I will be happy to help you locate and digest secondary literature about topics of interest to you. (Of course, this is something you will need to get an early start on if you are interested.)

However, don’t hesitate to use yourself as a way of going beyond Frege. If you found (or still find) something Frege says puzzling, your own question about or objection to what he appears to say is fine as a starting point for an interpretative essay. And, if something Frege says seems clear but not clearly correct, the sort of doubt about it that you notice is the starting point for an essay that addresses a philosophical or logical issue.

Although I will be happy to accept hard copies of these, I’d prefer to receive them via e-mail, as attachments or (if there is no special formatting) in the body of a message.