, 10:199 | Cite as

From Plato to Frege: Paradigms of Predication in the History of Ideas

  • Uwe MeixnerEmail author


One of the perennial questions of philosophy concerns the simple statements which say that an object is so and so or that such and such objects are so and so related: simple predicative statements. Do such statements have an ontological basis, and if so, what is that basis? The answer to this question determines—or in any case, is expressive of—a specific fundamental outlook on the world. In the course of the history of Western philosophy, various philosophers have given various answers to the question of predication. This essay presents the main, crucial answers: the paradigms and theories of predication of the Sophists (and of all later radical relativists), of Plato, of Aristotle, of the Aristotelian-minded non-nominalists, of Leibniz, and of Frege. In addition, the essay follows (to some extent) the most influential—the Aristotelian or mereological—paradigm of predication in its continuity and modification through the many centuries of its reign. However, the essay is not content to adopt the merely historical point of view; it also poses the question of adequacy. Prior to Frege, there was no philosophically adequate theory of predication, and the essay points out the shortcomings (besides aspects that can be viewed as advantages) of each pre-Fregean predication theory considered in it. Frege, in the nineteenth century, brought the philosophy of predication on the right track, but his own theory of predication has its own deficits. The essay ends with the presentation of a theory of predication that the author himself considers adequate.


Predication Plato Aristotle Leibniz Frege 


  1. Allen, R. E. 1973. “Substance and Predication in Aristotle’s Categories.” In: E. N. Lee, A. P. D. Mourelatos, R. M. Rorty (eds.), Exegesis and Argument. Studies in Greek Philosophy Presented to Gregory Vlastos, Assen (Netherlands): van Gorcum, 362–373.Google Scholar
  2. Aquinas, T. 1964. In Aristotelis Libros Peri Hermeneias et Posteriorum Analyticorum Expositio, cum textu ex recensione leonina. Augusta Taurinorum: Marietti.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle 1989. Aristoteles’ Metaphysik. Bücher I(A)–VI(E), edited by H. Seidl. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
  4. Aristotle 1991. Aristoteles’ Metaphysik. Bücher VII(Z)–XIV(N), edited by H. Seidl. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
  5. Aristotle 1998a. Kategorien. Hermeneutik, Organon vol. 2, edited by H.-G. Zekl. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  6. Aristotle 1998b. Erste Analytik. Zweite Analytik, Organon vol. 3/4, edited by H.-G. Zekl. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  7. Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Frege, G. 1975. “Funktion und Begriff.” In: G. Patzig (ed.), Funktion, Begriff, Bedeutung, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 17–39.Google Scholar
  9. Husserl, E. 2003. Phänomenologische Psychologie, edited by D. Lohmar. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
  10. Kutschera, F. v. 1998. “Parts of Forms. An Essay concerning Plato’s Parmenides.” Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 1: 57–74.Google Scholar
  11. Leibniz, G. W. 1985. Discours de Métaphysique. In: H. H. Holz (ed.), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Opuscules Métaphysiques/Kleine Schriften zur Metaphysik, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 49–165.Google Scholar
  12. Meixner, U. 1998. “Negative Theology, Coincidentia Oppositorum, and Boolean Algebra”. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 1: 75–89.Google Scholar
  13. Meixner, U. 2006. The Theory of Ontic Modalities. Heusenstamm near Frankfurt a. M.: ontos.Google Scholar
  14. Plato 1990. Phaidros. Parmenides. Epistolai. Vol. 5 of Werke in 8 Bänden, edited by G. Eigler. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft: Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  15. Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations