the thinker vs a thinker

Here's an excerpt from The Thought: A Logical Inquiry by G. Frege:



1) Why the thinker? He's talking in general. Is it a role name like the speaker and the hearer representing two main roles in a dialog?
2) Why did he use a thinker after using the thinker twice? Did he mean some other thinker or any thinker (general usage)?

1) Yes, it's like a "role name", as you put it. It's a specific use in the sense that it's the thinker of the thoughts mentioned in the previous sentence.

2) It's become more general here. There's no longer a specific reference to the thoughts mentioned in previous sentences.

Are you going to read, or have you already, read this text, Alexey? I'm curious.

jutfrank said:

Are you going to read, or have you already, read this text, Alexey? I'm curious.

Click to expand...

I saw the citation first, and now I'm in the process of slow reading.

jutfrank said:

2) It's become more general here. There's no longer a specific reference to the thoughts mentioned in previous sentences.

Click to expand...

That is confusing, given that the sentence with a thinker is obviously related to the previous two because it starts with the anaphoric they (= thoughts).

Alexey86 said:

That is confusing, given that the sentence with a thinker is obviously related to the previous two because it starts with the anaphoric they (= thoughts).

Click to expand...

Yes, I can see how this is hard.

But the thinker in the indefinite phrase a thinker is not the specific thinker of the thoughts mentioned, since those thoughts "can be true without being apprehended by a thinker" to think them. That's why the phrase is indefinite. Moreover, it wouldn't work to use a definite noun phrase there; if there's no thinker of the thoughts, there can't be anyone to make specific reference to.

Does that make sense?

jutfrank said:

But the thinker in the indefinite phrase a thinker is not the specific thinker of the thoughts mentioned, since those thoughts "can be true without being apprehended by a thinker" to think them. That's why the phrase is indefinite. Moreover, it wouldn't work to use a definite noun phrase there; if there's no thinker of the thoughts, there can't be anyone to make specific reference to.

Does that make sense?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I've read it several times and still don't understand. Frege used they to refer to the thoughts mentioned before, right? So, why didn't he continue talking about the same thinker? But that's not the main difficulty. After all, any author can make a transition from specific reference to general if (s)he wants. But why wouldn't the thinker work? I just can't see how your last passage explains that, given that we agreed the thinker was a role, not necessarily a specific person.

The author could have used the indefinite article, but would have lost the transition from discussing a specific thinker to discussing the general case of any thinker.

Alexy, it does get a bit complicated at times. Don't worry if you don't understand something right away.

Alexey86 said:

Frege used they to refer to the thoughts mentioned before, right?

Click to expand...

Yes.

So, why didn't he continue talking about the same thinker?

Click to expand...

There's no thinker at all any more. Thoughts can be true without any thinker. Thoughts do not need a thinker to be true.

But that's not the main difficulty. After all, any author can make a transition from specific reference to general if (s)he wants. But why wouldn't the thinker work?

Click to expand...

Like I said, it wouldn't make sense. Which thinker would that be referring to?

I just can't see how your last passage explains that, given that we agreed the thinker was a role, not necessarily a specific person.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'a role', then.

When we talk on this forum about 'the speaker', we're talking about the speaker of a particular utterance. In that way, we're making specific reference. Similarly, in this passage, the definite noun phrase the thinker is the thinker of a particular thought. We're specifying which speaker/thinker we're referring to. That's how the noun phrase is definite.

jutfrank said:

Yes.Like I said, it wouldn't make sense. Which thinker would that be referring to?.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'a role', then.

Click to expand...

I see a difference between the thinker referring to a specific person and a role. Only the former is truly definite in terms of reference. The latter is semi-definite like generic you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you). When I hear Brushing your teeth is healthy, I take your to refer to me and to everyone at the same time. I thought the thinker as a role that is present in every act of thinking could also refer to a specific person and everyone simultaneously and due to this feature could be used instead of a thinker: They can be true without being apprehended by the thinker (by you)...

Alexey86 said:

I see a difference between the thinker referring to a specific person and a role. Only the former is truly definite in terms of reference. The latter is semi-definite like generic you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you). When I hear Brushing your teeth is healthy, I take your to refer to me and to everyone at the same time. I thought the thinker as a role that is present in every act of thinking could also refer to a specific person and everyone simultaneously and due to this feature could be used instead of a thinker: They can be true without being apprehended by the thinker (by you)...

Click to expand...

Okay, I see clearly what you mean by 'a role'. Yes, in any scenario you can use definite articles to refers to the people and things that play various roles. For example, in a poker game, there's the dealer and the players and the table and the ace of spades, etc.

But now I'm not sure what you mean by a 'specific person'. Could you make that clear? Because I suspect this may be where we're thinking about different things. When I say 'a specific person', I mean 'somebody who is being specified'. So in the poker example, the dealer is a specific person, the players are specific people, the table is a specific table, etc.

GoesStation said:

View attachment 3844

Click to expand...

Funnily enough, that's both a thinker and The Thinker!

jutfrank said:

But now I'm not sure what you mean by a 'specific person'. Could you make that clear? Because I suspect this may be where we're thinking about different things.

Click to expand...

It seems so.

jutfrank said:

When I say 'a specific person', I mean 'somebody who is being specified'. So in the poker example, the dealer is a specific person, the players are specific people, the table is a specific table, etc.

Click to expand...

In what sense is the dealer specific? Are you talking about a particular game? Do you have a particular person in mind? To my ear, it's a general statement (the poker example) describing any poker game. And it is its roles that are specific and unique. Of course each role/party in a game is performed by a person(s), but that doesn't make them specific in a general statement.

So, I thought the thinker could be used in the role sense as it's the case with the dealer.

Okay, good, it seems we've identified a major area of misunderstanding—we're not using the word specific in the same way. I think this is a very useful discovery.

Alexey86 said:

In what sense is the dealer specific?

Click to expand...

Another way to say this is to say that the dealer is being referred to. I often phrase it such that the dealer is being made reference to. Would it be clearer if instead I used either 'specified' or 'identified' when I'm using this sense?

Are you talking about a particular game? Do you have a particular person in mind?

Click to expand...

No, absolutely not. I think that perhaps that's what you were thinking, right? No, I don't mean a particular person in the sense of a real individual person. As you put it, it's just a role that could be taken by a real individual person. My poker scenario is only hypothetical. It exists as an abstraction—a generalised concept.

To my ear, it's a general statement (the poker example) describing any poker game.

Click to expand...

Yes.

And it is its roles that are specific and unique.

Click to expand...

Are you using the words specific and unique as synonyms there, then? When you say 'specific', do you just mean 'unique'?

Of course each role/party in a game is performed by a person(s), but that doesn't make them specific in a general statement.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean. I hope I've managed to clear this up above.

So, I thought the thinker could be used in the role sense as it's the case with the dealer.

Click to expand...

Yes, we agree on this. The way I put it in my previous post was that both are specific (meaning 'specified' or 'identified') in that 'the thinker' is a thinker of the mentioned thoughts and 'the dealer' is a dealer of the mentioned poker game. This 'of'-ness is what it makes it specific.

Another way of saying this is that when we say 'the thinker', we're making reference to him in relation to the situation that has been mentioned previously in the text (that there are thoughts to be had), and when we say 'the dealer', we're making reference to him in relation to the situation that has been mentioned previously in this conversation (that there is a poker game). There being a relation is crucial to how reference works. There must be a relation in order for reference to even be possible. When the relation is clear enough from the text (whether that's a piece of writing, or a conversation, or whatever), we call it endophor, and when the relation is not clear from the text, it's called exophor. An example of exophor might be if I tell you out of the blue that I saw 'the Queen' yesterday. I hopefully wouldn't need to say which queen I mean because I hope you would assume I'm talking about the Queen of England (notice the 'of'). Yes, 'the Queen' can be seen as a role in the scenario of a country just as 'the dealer' is a role in a card game. The only difference is the kind of reference being made, i.e., exophoric/endophoric.

jutfrank said:

Funnily enough, that's both a thinker and The Thinker!

Click to expand...

I cropped my father, who was sitting and apparently thinking in a wheelchair at the base of the plinth, out of the picture

jutfrank said:

Are you using the words specific and unique as synonyms there, then? When you say 'specific', do you just mean 'unique'?

Click to expand...

Yes, and that's why it's the thinker.

jutfrank said:

'the thinker' is a thinker of the mentioned thoughts and 'the dealer' is a dealer of the mentioned poker game. This 'of'-ness is what it makes it specific.

Another way of saying this is that when we say 'the thinker', we're making reference to him in relation to the situation that has been mentioned previously in the text (that there are thoughts to be had), and when we say 'the dealer', we're making reference to him in relation to the situation that has been mentioned previously

Click to expand...

That's the point of my disagreement or misunderstanding. To be clear, I understand why the third Frege's thinker takes a. What I don't understand is why you insist that the wouldn't make any sense. As I see it, the thinker and the dealer as roles can go beyond any particular situation in their referential scope and cover all possible situations where they are present as essential elements. So, despite the fact of being related to the previous mentioned thoughts, the thinker can refer to any thinker that performs this role.
So, they (thoughts) can be true without being apprehended by the thinker would just mean that in a situation in which there is a thought, the role of a thinker doesn't need for this thought to be true. While the original variant with a means any particular thinker.

Alexey86 said:

Yes, and that's why it's the thinker.

Click to expand...

I see. Then I'd ask you to change that for the sake of our communication.

That's the point of my disagreement or misunderstanding. To be clear, I understand why the third Frege's thinker takes a. What I don't understand is why you insist that the wouldn't make any sense.

Click to expand...

Right. And I can't understand how you could think that it does make sense. If you were to use the thinker there, which thinker would you be referring to? There's no thinker being referred to. If a thought is apprehended, then there must be a thinker to apprehend it. The point of the sentence is that a thought can be true without any thinker being there to apprehend it. Frege is not still referring to the same thinker-as-role as before but is now invoking an 'indefinite' thinker.

It's no different from the pair:

You can't play poker without a pack of cards.
You can't play poker without the pack of cards.

You obviously can't use these sentences interchangeably, can you? Only one of these can make sense in any given context.

As I see it, the thinker and the dealer as roles can go beyond any particular situation in their referential scope and cover all possible situations where they are present as essential elements.

Click to expand...

Right.

So, despite the fact of being related to the previous mentioned thoughts, the thinker can refer to any thinker that performs this role.

Click to expand...

Just to be certain that I understand you—do you mean the thinker as exophoric? There's always a limit to the referential scope though, right? There's always a context within which reference relations are made, isn't there? There's always a 'game' that any role has to be played in.

So, they (thoughts) can be true without being apprehended by the thinker would just mean that in a situation in which there is a thought, the role of a thinker doesn't need for this thought to be true.

Click to expand...

Ah, I think I see what you mean. No, I think you're reading it wrong. It's not the truth that is not apprehended, it's the thought itself. Like I said above, if there's no apprehension, there's no thinker. Frege is saying that a thought can be true without there being any thinker at all. He's saying that thoughts can affect the thinker but the thinker cannot affect the thought, which is what makes thoughts characteristically different from natural things like physical objects.

jutfrank said:

I see. Then I'd ask you to change that for the sake of our communication.

Click to expand...

Sorry, change what? I thought you agreed the thinker as a role was unique and hence definite like the dealer.

jutfrank said:

If you were to use the thinker there, which thinker would you be referring to? There's no thinker being referred to. If a thought is apprehended, then there must be a thinker to apprehend it. The point of the sentence is that a thought can be true without any thinker being there to apprehend it. Frege is not still referring to the same thinker-as-role as before but is now invoking an 'indefinite' thinker.

Click to expand...

Let's consider two variants:
1) The thinker as a role. In this case, there is no such problem as there's no thinker being referred to at all because the thinker is a role (abstraction) that is always present even if there is no actual person performing it. You can think of the thinker as a slot that is 'filled in' with a performer. But even if the slot is empty, it still exists. Frege states this slot isn't needed.

2) The thinker as a particular person. Suppose some man has the thought the Earth is round (which is true) in his mind. Now, according to Frege this thought would be true even without this thinker (= the thinker) thinking it. I see no problem with Frege's example since he uses the thinker twice before, so there is definitely someone the third thinker can refer to.

Would that make sense to you?

jutfrank said:

Ah, I think I see what you mean. No, I think you're reading it wrong. It's not the truth that is not apprehended, it's the thought itself.

Click to expand...

I'm confused because I don't understand what made you think so. It's clear that it's the thought that is not apprehended.

Alexey86 said:

Sorry, change what? I thought you agreed the thinker as a role was unique and hence definite like the dealer.

Click to expand...

I meant desist from using 'specific' to mean 'unique'. I just wanted to make sure we both mean the same thing when we say something is specific.

Let's consider two variants:
1) The thinker as a role. In this case, there is no such problem as there's no thinker being referred to at all because the thinker is a role (abstraction) that is always present even if there is no actual person performing it. You can think of the thinker as a slot that is 'filled in' with a performer. But even if the slot is empty, it still exists. Frege states this slot isn't needed.

Click to expand...

Okay. Yep, I got it.

2) The thinker as a particular person. Suppose some man has the thought the Earth is round (which is true) in his mind. Now, according to Frege this thought would be true even without this thinker (= the thinker) thinking it. I see no problem with Frege's example since he uses the thinker twice before, so there is definitely someone the third thinker can refer to.

Click to expand...

Okay.

Would that make sense to you?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think so.

I'm confused because I don't understand what made you think so. It's clear that it's the thought that is not apprehended.

Click to expand...

Oh sorry, I misunderstood.

Have we got anywhere in this thread yet? Or are things just as confusing and unexplained as before? If you're still wondering why Frege (or rather his translator) couldn't have used the instead of a, then I'm going to maintain that that wouldn't be right. However, I do think your justifications for using the instead of a do make some sense now that you've explained your thinking to me, but that's not the way a native speaker would be thinking.

jutfrank said:

I meant desist from using 'specific' to mean 'unique'. I just wanted to make sure we both mean the same thing when we say something is specific.

Click to expand...

Now it's clear, thanks.

jutfrank said:

Have we got anywhere in this thread yet? Or are things just as confusing and unexplained as before?

Click to expand...

What do you think about GS's reply in #6: The author could have used the definite article, but would have lost the transition from discussing a specific thinker to discussing the general case of any thinker.

It seems GS thinks both variants make sense.

And as a side note, I'd like to notice that reference issues are more or less universal. Although Russian doesn't have articles, if somebody told me I saw cat. Cat was black, I would easily discern the indefiniteness of the first cat and the definiteness of the second one and understand that the second cat was referring to the first one. When I translate Frege's sentences into Russian, I clearly see three referential possibilities with regard to the third thinker: a) an aforementioned person (anaphorically definite) b) a unique role (inherently definite -> its definiteness doesn't depend on a particular situation -> can be used in a general context), c) any person (indefinite/general). And it's surprising to me that only the last one makes sense to you. By default, I would choose a).