The power of Frege’slogic to dispel philosophical problems was immediately recognized. Consider, for instance, the hoary problem of “non-being.” In the novelThrough the Looking-Glass byLewis Carroll, the messenger says he passed nobody on the road, and he is met with the observation, “Nobody walks slower than you.” To this the messenger replies, “I’m sure nobody walks much faster than I do,” which in turn makes it seem strange that he (the messenger) could overtake him (Nobody). The problem arises from treatingnobody as a singular term, one that must refer to some thing—in this case to a mysterious being that does not exist. Whennobody is treated as it should be—as a quantifier—the sentenceI passed nobody on the road can be understood asmeaning that thepredicate...was passed by me on the road is unsatisfied. There is nothing paradoxical or mysterious about this.

In his paper “On Denoting” (1905), the English philosopherBertrand Russell (1872–1970) took the further step of bringingdefinite descriptions—noun phrases of the formthe so and so, such asthe present king of France—into the scope of Frege’s logic. The problem addressed by Russell was how to account for the meaningfulness of definite descriptions that do not refer to anything. Such descriptions are commonly used in formal mathematical reasoning, as in a proof byreductio ad absurdum that there is no greatest prime number. The proof consists of deriving a contradiction from the sentenceLetx be the greatest prime number, which contains a description,the greatest prime number, that byhypothesis does not refer. If the description is treated as a Fregean singular term, however, then it is not clear what sense it could have, since sense, according to Frege, is the mode of presentation of a referent.

Russell’s brilliant solution is to see such descriptions as in effect quantificational.Letx be the greatest prime number is analyzed asLetx be prime and such that no number greater thanx is prime. Similarly, Russell’s celebrated exampleThe present king of France is bald is analyzed asThere is anx such that: (i)x is now king of France, (ii) for anyy, ify is now king of France, theny =x, and (iii)x is bald. In other words, there is one and only one king of France, and that individual is bald. This sentence is false but not nonsensical. Crucially, sincethe present King of France does not function as a singular term in the analysis, no referent for it is required to make the description or the sentence meaningful. The analysis works not by asking whatthe present king of France refers to but by accounting for the meanings of sentences in whichthe present king of France occurs; the Fregean priority of sentence meaning over word meaning is thus maintained. In this paper Russell took himself to be inaugurating a program of analysis that would similarly show how many other kinds of philosophically puzzling entities are actually “logical fictions.”

Frege and Russell initiated what is often called the “linguistic turn” in Anglo-Americanphilosophy (seeanalytic philosophy). Until that time, of course,language had provided certain topics of philosophical speculation—such as meaning, understanding, reference, and truth—but these topics had been treated as largely independent of others that were unrelated (or not directly related) to language—such as knowledge, mind,substance, and time. Frege, however, showed that fundamental advances in mathematics could be made by studying the language used to express mathematical thought. Theidea rapidly generalized: henceforward, instead of studying, say, the nature of substance as ametaphysical issue, philosophers would investigate the language in which claims about substance are expressed, and so on for other topics. The philosophy of language soon achieved a foundational position, leading to a “golden age” of logical analysis in the first three decades of the 20th century. For the practitioners of the new philosophy,modern logic provided a tool for exhaustively categorizing the linguistic forms in which information could be expressed and for identifying the determinate logicalimplications associated with each form. Analysis would uncover philosophically troublesome logical fictions in sentences whose logical forms are unclear on the surface, and it would ultimately reveal the nature of the reality to which language is connected. This vision was stated with utmost severity and rigour in theTractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921), by Russell’s brilliant Austrian pupilLudwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951).

Wittgenstein’sTractatus

In theTractatus,sentences are treated as “pictures” of states of affairs. As in Frege’s system, the basic elements consist of referring expressions, or “logically proper” names, which pick out the simplest parts of states of affairs. The simplest propositions, called “elementary” or “atomic,” are complexes whose structure or logical form is the same as that of the state of affairs they represent.Atomic sentences stand in nological relation to one another, since logic applies only to complex sentences built up from atomic sentences through simple logical operations, such as conjunction and negation (seeconnective). Logic itself is trivial, in the sense that it is merely a means of making explicit what is already there. It is “true” only in the way that a tautology is true—by definition and not because it accurately represents features of an independently existing reality.

More From Britannica

John Searle: Philosophy of language

According to Wittgenstein, sentences of ordinary language that cannot be constructed by logical operations on atomic sentences are, strictly speaking, senseless, though they may have some function other than representing the world. Thus, sentences containingethical terms, as well as those purporting to refer to the will, to the self, or to God, are meaningless. Notoriously, however, Wittgenstein pronounced the same verdict on the sentences of theTractatus itself—thus suggesting, to some philosophers, that he had cut off the branch on which he was sitting. Wittgenstein’s own metaphorical injunction, that the reader must throw away the ladder once he has climbed it, does not seem to resolve the difficulty, since it implies that the reader’s climb up the ladder actually gets him somewhere. How could this be—what could the reader have learned—if the sentences of theTractatus are senseless? Wittgenstein denied the predicament, asserting that in histreatise the logical form of language is “shown” but not “said.” This contrast, however, remains notoriously unclear, and few philosophers have been brave enough to claim that they fully understand it.