Burge's Literal Interpretation of Frege

Abstract

There was a time when philosophers assumed that no exegetical work was required to understand Frege's fundamental doctrines. Granted, people found certain passages in his writings puzzling. But they typically regarded these passages as presenting isolated difficulties that could not undermine the general consensus about Frege's central views. The need for exegesis of passages expressing those central views seemed obviated by the clarity of Frege's prose and the closeness of his concerns to ours. ' In recent years, however, this view of Frege's writings has been challenged. The secondary literature now includes interpretations of Frege's corpus so revisionist in spirit that they construe even the most renowned passages in his writings as expressing unfamiliar views. One purpose of Tyler Burge's recent article, on Knowing the Third Realm(1992), is to respond to this challenge.2 Burge believes that, whatever motivates such interpretations, it cannot be a desire to give a straightforward literal reading of the text. For the meaning of the texts is obvious: Frege is the uncompromising realist and Platonist most have thought him. Those who have offered idealist or deflationary interpretations of Frege's writings, according to Burge, must face up to the fact that their interpretations simply go afoul of the words on Frege's pages.3 But, as I will argue below, it is Burge, not the revisionist, whose interpretation goes afoul of the words on Frege's pages; it is Burge whose interpretation requires that numerous passages be reinterpreted or explained away.4 My argument has two parts. Because, on his view, the content of Frege's fundamental views is so obvious, Burge thinks that the appropriate response to revisionist interpretations amounts to straightfor-