Gemäß Freges Lehre bestehen Gedanken nicht aus Teilen, sie sind allerdings in Teile zerlegbar. Es gibt unterschiedliche Zerlegungen desselben Gedankens, die in allen objektiven Hinsichten gleichwertig sind. Freges einziges Identitätskriterium für Gedanken war sein Äquipollenzprinzip, demzufolge zwei simple Sätze denselben Gedanken ausdrücken, wenn sie unmöglich verschiedene Wahrheitswerte haben. Zerlegung von Gedanken ist für menschliche Erkenntnis unerläßlich, enthält aber ein Moment subjektiver Willkür. Die objektiven Zusammenhänge zwischen Sprache, Sinn und Bezug bestehen nur auf der Ebene unzerlegter Ganzheiten (Sätze, Gedanken, Wahrheitswerte). Freges semantische Lehre hat mit Quines Unbestimmüieitsthesen wesentliche strukturelle Gemeinsamkeiten.

Frege spricht einerseits von der Zerlegung von Gedanken in Gedankenteile, andrerseits aber vom Aufbau von Gedanken. Scheinbar werden damit verschiedene inkompatible Auffassungen über Struktur bzw. Strukturlosigkeit von Gedanken ausgedrückt. Frege gebraucht jedoch den Ausdruck „Zerlegung" in mehreren Bedeutungen, die mit der Idee einer Konstruktion des Gedankens aus Teilen nicht nur vereinbar sind, sondern diese Idee sinnvoll ergänzen. Gedanken im Sinne Freges sind schon an sich auf eine bestimmte Weise logisch strukturiert und unterschieden sich gerade dadurch wesentlich von den sprachlichen Bedeutungen natursprachlicher Sätze.

The paradox of analysis is the problem of formulating analyses that avoid the metaphilosophical dilemma of uninformativeness where analysandum and analysans are identical in meaning, and incorrectness or unsoundness where analysandum and analysans are nonidentical in meaning. Frege's distinction between sense and reference supports an intentional solution to the paradox, incorporating Roderick M. Chisholm's concept of converse intentional properties. Formal definitions of unrestricted Leibnizian or conceptual identity and referential identity or codesignation are provided, under which analysanda and analysantia are referentially identical, guaranteeing informativeness, of philosophically correct analyses.

The most basic requirement of any theory of concrete individuals is that it do justice to the fact that, unlike universals, individuals are non-instantiable. The bundle theories of Russell and Goodman, the Guise Theory of Castaneda and the Trope Theory of D.C.Williams each breach this requirement by implicity allowing an individual to be instantiable either after it has ceased to exist or both before and after it has ceased to exist. Underlying this flaw in all four theories is the tacit assumption that individuals are ontologically prior to their constituents. That is to say, an individual's constituents do not individuate it, but are individuated by it somewhat after the manner of the non-substantial particulars of Aristotle or the individualized forms of Aquinas.

This article compares the theory of Meinongian objects proposed by Edward Zalta with a theory of fiction formulated within an early Russellian framework. The Russellian framework is the second-order intensional logic proposed by Nino B. Cocchiarelly as a reconstruction of the form of Logicism Russell was examining shortly after writing The Principles of Mathematics. A Russellian theory of denoting concepts is developed in this intensional logic and applied as a theory of the "objects' of fiction. The framework retains the Orthodox early Russellian ontology of existents, possible non-existents, and properties and relations in intension. This avoids the assumption, found in Meinongian theories, of impossible and incomplete objects. It also obviates the need to preserve consistency by distinguishing a new "mode of predication", or a "distinction in kinds of predicates". Thus, it is argued that an early Russellian theory forms a powerful rival to a Meinongian theory of objects.

Arguments against naturalistic style accounts of representations in humans and other animals would be obviated if scepticism concerning their conclusion could be justified. One such justification consists in showing, in detail, that the concept of representation has a purchase among 'non-linguistic' animals. Thereby the existence of natural or 'intrinsic' intentionality is secured. Four levels of explanation can be distinguished in the study of animal behavior and capacity rely on attributions of representations to animals (to what N. Humphrey calls 'nature's psychologists'). Such explanations cite factors which do not covary directly with physical magnitudes in the stimuli. Additional animal studies are analysed, examining (1) the claim that not all representations are 'linguistic' (the Two Representations Hypothesis), (2) categorization in animals, (3) 'self-representation' in animals, (4) animal deception, and (5) comparative and weighting representations in animal learning and behavior.

Ein „truth teller sentence" (kurz: TT) ist ein Satz, der seine eigene Wahrheit behauptet. Bei der lebhaften Diskussion über die Wahrheitstheorie für Systeme, in denen die Lügnerparadoxie darstellbar ist, sind auch selbstreferentielle Sätze der Form eines TT intensiver untersucht worden. In der Regel wurden sie „symmetrisch" aufgefaßt: Wahrheits- und Falschheitsannahmen für einen TT schienen gleichermaßen (und aus völlig analogen Gründen) akzeptabel oder inakzeptabel. Die metatheoretischen Einsichten über TTs waren in gängigen paradoxietheoretischen Systemen jedoch nicht objektsprachlich darstellbar. Eine quotations- und reflexionslogische Analyse ertaubt eine derartige objektsprachliche Repräsentation der Semantik von TTs und führt zu einer asymmetrischen Auffassung vom TT: der TT behauptet etwas (schließlich) Falsches.

Expressions of the form "s represents an F", "s represents t as G", and "s represents an F as G" are analysed by means of C. S. Peirce's and Nelson Goodman's semiotic theories, and these theories are compared with each other. It is argued that Peirce's concept of interpretant provides a plausible account of what Goodman calls the exemplification features of aesthetic signs (works of art).

In this paper I try to state and defend Epicurus' argument that death is nothing to us. I discuss some of the most prominent objections that have been raised against Epicurus' position in the recent literature; the authors whose work I discuss include T. Nagel, B.Williams, H. S. Silverstein, and D. Furley. I argue that all of these author's criticisms are flawed in one way or another While this result does not suffice to prove Epicurus right, it does show that Epicurus' insight is much deeper than many of his critics have suspected.