ভূমিকা

[^3] Again, for an outline of the history of the transformative conception of analysis, see Beaney 2003a. [^4] Wisdom [^1931]: Cf. Hacker 1996, pp. 72, 281. I mention Bentham’s conception in talking of ‘paraphrastic analysis’ in §1 of my paper (p. [6]) below. [^5] This requires qualification, since Frege also came to think that phrases of the form ‘The concept F’ are misleading. So further analysis is needed. But I ignore these complications here. I say more in §2 of my paper below.

[^6] For details, see Beaney 2003a, §[^6]:5, where further references can be found; 2003b, which focuses on the central role played in the debate by Susan Stebbing (1885-1943). Cf. §1 of my paper below. [^7] On Carnap’s conception of explication, as it developed from the idea of rational reconstruction in the Aufbau, see also Beaney [^2004]: [^8] Reference to the ‘phänomenologische Reduktion’ occurs in the so-called ‘Seefeld’ manuscripts of 1905; cf. Schuhmann 1977, p.

[^92]: The first public mention occurs in lectures given in 1906-7 (Husserl 1906-7). Cf. Mohanty 1995, p. 57; Moran 2000, pp. 138, 146, 493. [^9] See, for example, the papers published in Horgan, Tienson and Potrč [^2002]: [^10] Once again, for an outline of the history of the regressive conception of analysis, see Beaney 2003a. Let me clarify my use of the terms ‘mode’ and ‘conception’ at this point (cf. §1 of my paper, pp. [2-3] below).

As I see it, in actual practices of analysis, all three of the modes I have distinguished are typically involved, as illustrated by Frege’s logicist project (cf. §2 of Reck’s paper below). But one of those modes may be privileged in a certain conception, and then we may speak, e.g., of the decompositional conception (such as the early Moore undoubtedly had). [^11] For an account of Husserl’s ‘discovery’ of reduction, see Moran 2000, ch.

[^4]: [^12] See Burge 2005, especially the introduction and the papers in Part III. [^13] See Frege 1914; cf. Frege [^2004]: I discuss the relationship between Frege and Carnap on the issue of explication in Beaney 2004.