Skip to main content

Hintikka on the “Kant–Frege View”: A Critical Assessment

Abstract

In “Kant on Existence, Predication, and the Ontological Argument” (1981), Hintikka argues that the so-called “Kant–Frege view” (i.e., the claim that Kant is a forerunner of Frege’s treatment of existence) is wrong, for its supporters erroneously assume that for Kant ‘is’ is ambiguous. In this paper, I will first critically evaluate Hintikka’s arguments against the Kant–Frege view. Then, I will attempt to prove that Kant’s claim that existence is not a real predicate and Frege’s claim that existence is a quantifier are in fact logically interdependent. Finally, I will use the Kant–Frege view in order to reconcile the various claims that Kant makes about existence.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Appiah, K.A.: Thinking It Through. Oxford University Press, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bennett, J.: Kant’s Dialectics. Cambridge University Press, New York (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Everitt, N.: The Non-Existence of God. Routledge, London (2004)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Floyd, J.: On the use and abuse of logic in philosophy: Kant, Frege and Hintikka on the verb ‘to be’. In: Auxier, E. (ed.) The Philosophy of Jaakko Hintikka. Library of Living Philosophers Series, pp. 137–188. Open Court, Chicago (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Forgie, J.: Kant and Frege: existence as a second-level property. Kant-Stud. 91, 165–177 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hintikka, J.: Kant on existence, predication, and the ontological argument. Dialectica 35, 127–146 (1981)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kant, I.: The One Possible Basis for a Demonstration of the Existence of God. In: Treash, G. (tr.) University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln (1979)

  8. Kant, I.: Critique of Pure Reason. In: Guyer P., Wood A.W. (eds.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)

  9. Mion, G.: On Kant’s hidden ambivalence toward existence in his critique of the ontological argument. J. Appl. Log. (forthcoming)

  10. Orenstein, A.: Existence and the Particular Quantifier. Temple University Press, Philadelphia (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Russell, B.: On denoting. Mind 14, 479–493 (1905)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shaffer, J.: Existence, predication and the ontological argument. Mind 71, 307–325 (1962)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Van Cleve, J.: Problems from Kant. Oxford University Press, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Vilko, R., Hintikka, J.: Existence and predication from Aristotle to Kant. Res. 73, 359–377 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wittgenstein, L.: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. In: Pears, D.F., McGuinness B.F. (tr.) Routledge, London (1974)

  16. Wood, A.W.: Kant’s Rational Theology. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1978)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Mion.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mion, G. Hintikka on the “Kant–Frege View”: A Critical Assessment. Log. Univers. 13, 171–178 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-018-0198-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-018-0198-3

Mathematics Subject Classification

  • Primary 03B10
  • Secondary 03B65

Keywords

  • Hintikka
  • The Kant–Frege view
  • existential quantifier
  • existential generalization