conceptual

  Giauqinto’s notion of “Aspect Shifting” (2007), which Atsoshi Shimojima develops in (2015), which can probably be traced back to Wittgenstein, is just Danielle Macbeth’s “multiple analysis” (2005), which she takes from Gottlöb Frege and which is central to my account of analysis, but I took mostly from Dummett, and is also Emily Grossholz’s “productive ambiguity” (2007) which itself was originally coined by Earle Brown in 1986, and Joo Shin’s “ multiple carving” from (2002). Not only are they (extensionally and intensionally) equivalent, they also aim for the same philosophical function: to solve the so-called paradox of analysis, i.e., how can the conclusions (of valid deductive arguments) or solutions of constructive problems be at the same time new information, and contained in the premises or problems. Short version of the answer: because there is some sort of ambiguity in the way we represent the given information so that when you see them or analyze them in a certain way, i