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.
References
Berg J. (1962) Bolzano’s logic. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm
Buhl G. (1961). Ableitbarkeit und Abfolge in der Wissenschaftstheorie Bolzanos. Kant-Studien, Ergänzungsheft 83. Köln: Kölner Universitäts-Verlag.
Beth E.W. (1965) The foundations of mathematics (2nd. ed). North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam
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.
Boswell T. (1988) On the textual authenticity of Kant’s logic. History and Philosophy of Logic 9: 193–203
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: 235–274
de Jong W.R. (1995) Kant’s analytic judgments and the traditional theory of concepts. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 33: 613–641
de Jong W.R. (1996) Gottlob Frege and the analytic-synthetic distinction within the framework of the Aristotelian model of science. Kant-Studien, 87: 290–324
de Jong W.R. (2001) Bernard Bolzano, analyticity and the Aristotelian model of science. Kant-Studien, 92: 328–349
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.
Euclid (1956). The Elements. In: T. L. Health (Trans. & comm.). The thirteen books of The Elements. New York: Dover.
Frege G. (1879). Begriffsschrift eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. In: Angelelli I. (eds). (1971). Begriffsschrift und andere Aufsätze. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
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.
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.
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.
Hanna R. (2001) Kant and the foundations of analytic philosophy. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Kant, I. (1783). Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können. In Kant (1902), IV, pp. 255–383.
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).
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.
Kitcher P. (1979) Frege’s epistemology. The Philosophical Review, 88: 235–263
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.
Proust J. (1986) Questions de forme, Logique et proposition analytique de Kant à Carnap.. Fayard, Paris
Scholz H. (1937) Die Wissenschaftslehre Bolzanos. Eine Jahrhundert-Betrachtung. Abhandlungen der Fries’schen Schule (N.F.) 6(399–472): 6 399–472
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
de Jong, W.R. The analytic-synthetic distinction and the classical model of science: Kant, Bolzano and Frege. Synthese 174, 237–261 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9420-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9420-9
Keywords
- Analytic-synthetic
- Science
- Logic
- Kant
- Bolzano
- Frege