Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 174, Issue 2, pp 237–261 | Cite as

The analytic-synthetic distinction and the classical model of science: Kant, Bolzano and Frege

  • Willem R. de Jong
Open Access
Article

Abstract

This paper concentrates on some aspects of the history of the analytic-synthetic distinction from Kant to Bolzano and Frege. This history evinces considerable continuity but also some important discontinuities. The analytic-synthetic distinction has to be seen in the first place in relation to a science, i.e. an ordered system of cognition. Looking especially to the place and role of logic it will be argued that Kant, Bolzano and Frege each developed the analytic-synthetic distinction within the same conception of scientific rationality, that is, within the Classical Model of Science: scientific knowledge as cognitio ex principiis. But as we will see, the way the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments or propositions functions within this model turns out to differ considerably between them.

Keywords

Analytic-synthetic Science Logic Kant Bolzano Frege 

Notes

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution,and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. Berg J. (1962) Bolzano’s logic. Almqvist & Wiksell, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  2. Buhl G. (1961). Ableitbarkeit und Abfolge in der Wissenschaftstheorie Bolzanos. Kant-Studien, Ergänzungsheft 83. Köln: Kölner Universitäts-Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Beth E.W. (1965) The foundations of mathematics (2nd. ed). North-Holland Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolzano, B. (1837). Wissenschaftslehre. In L. Winter, et al. (Eds.). (1969–). Bernard Bolzano Gesamtausgabe. Reihe 1 (Vols. 11–14). Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt: Frommann-Holzboog. Where possible quotations from J. Berg (Ed.). (1973). Theory of science. B. Terrell (Trans.). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  5. Boswell T. (1988) On the textual authenticity of Kant’s logic. History and Philosophy of Logic 9: 193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Jong W.R. (1995) How is metaphysics as a science possible? Kant on the distinction between philosophical and mathematical method. The Review of Metaphysics, 49: 235–274Google Scholar
  7. de Jong W.R. (1995) Kant’s analytic judgments and the traditional theory of concepts. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 33: 613–641Google Scholar
  8. de Jong W.R. (1996) Gottlob Frege and the analytic-synthetic distinction within the framework of the Aristotelian model of science. Kant-Studien, 87: 290–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Jong W.R. (2001) Bernard Bolzano, analyticity and the Aristotelian model of science. Kant-Studien, 92: 328–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Jong, W. R., & Betti, A. (2008). The classical model of science: A millennia-old model of scientific rationality. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-008-9417-4.
  11. Euclid (1956). The Elements. In: T. L. Health (Trans. & comm.). The thirteen books of The Elements. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  12. Frege G. (1879). Begriffsschrift eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. In: Angelelli I. (eds). (1971). Begriffsschrift und andere Aufsätze. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
  13. Frege, G. (1884). Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Eine logisch-mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl (1961). Hildesheim: Georg Olms. Quotations from J. L. Austin (Trans.). (1978). The foundations of arithmetic. A logico-mathematical enquiry into the concept of number. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Frege, G. (1969). Nachgelassene Schriften. In H. Hermes, et al. (Eds.). Hamburg: Meiner. Quotations from H. Hermes, et al. (Eds.). (1979). Posthumous writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Frege, G. (1990). Kleine Schriften. In I. Angelelli (Ed.). (2nd ed.). Hildesheim: Georg Olms. Quotations from B. McGuiness (Ed.). (1984). Collected papers on mathematics, logic and philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Hanna R. (2001) Kant and the foundations of analytic philosophy. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Kant, I. (1783). Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können. In Kant (1902), IV, pp. 255–383.Google Scholar
  18. Kant, I. (1787). Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1998). Hamburg: Felix Meiner. References are in the customary way via the pagination of the first (A) or second printing (B).Google Scholar
  19. Kant, I. (1902). Kants gesammelte Schriften. Vol. I—XXIX (1902-1983). Berlin: De Gruyter, Reimer. Quotations from P. Guyer & A. W. Wood (Eds.). (1992–). The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kitcher P. (1979) Frege’s epistemology. The Philosophical Review, 88: 235–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leibniz, G. W. (1679). De synthesi et analysi universali seu arte inveniendi et judicandi. In L. E. Loemker (Ed. & trans.). (1967). Philosophical papers and letters (pp. 229-234). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  22. Proust J. (1986) Questions de forme, Logique et proposition analytique de Kant à Carnap.. Fayard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. Scholz H. (1937) Die Wissenschaftslehre Bolzanos. Eine Jahrhundert-Betrachtung. Abhandlungen der Fries’schen Schule (N.F.) 6(399–472): 6 399–472Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculteit der WijsbegeerteVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations