Advertisement

Abstract

The question motivating the present work is: what is really the significance of Frege with respect to the philosophical tradition? Of course this question may also be viewed as a particular case of the more general one: what is the significance of modern “Grundlagenforschung” or modern logic with respect to the philosophical tradition? The problem is of the type quid sit rather than of the type an sit, the latter enjoying nowadays an unanimously affirmative answer. Our aim is therefore to provide more precise answers to the question regarding the nature of Frege’s relations with the philosophical tradition. Such relations may be considered under different aspects. In one of these aspects Frege’s significance with respect to the philosophical past has already been largely dealt with; this is his purely formal logical creation. And perhaps the above mentioned unanimity is mostly restricted to Frege qua logician.

Keywords

Philosophical Tradition Precise Answer Modern Logic Pure Intuition Accidental Predication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bochenski [1], p. 317.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cf. note 12.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cf. Section 10.6.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    UFT (1885) contains a particularly clear and concise formulation of logicism, but GRL (1884) already includes the same ideas.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    For the pure intuition cf. BG, § 23 (“… selbst durch eine Anschauung a priori…).” Also GRL, §§ 90, 91.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    BG, Vorwort,p. IV (“… Damit sich hierbei nicht unbemerkt etwas Anschauliches eindrangen könnte…”). But see the more impressive statement in GRL, § 91: “Um diese Übelstände zu vermindern [i.e., to detect non-logical factors in demonstration], habe ich meine Begriffsschrift erdacht.”Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    I expand in this way Frege’s statement in BG, p. IV below. Cf. note 5 here.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    This is of course a free interpretation of the word “Begriffsschrift”,but I think it is adequate to Frege’s insights.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    wir gelangten zu einer Verbesserung der Ansicht Kants“ (GRL, § 109). This is the result (1884) of the program sketched in 1879 (BG, Vorwort). Frege thinks that ”außer von Kant noch wenig in dieser Richtung geleistet worden ist“ (COH, p. 324). For Leibniz cf. BG, Vorwort.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cf. Section 10.6.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Of course Frege was not supposed to know history of philosophy.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marty [1], p. 56. Mortan [1] contains (Anhang) the best biographical references on Frege, including a publication of the Gutachten of Frege’s academic life.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cf. BG (reprint Olms), Vorbemerkung. Frege’s lack of success among mathematicians is notorious, cf., for instance, GRG, I, p. XI, note; also Linke [1].Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cf. Chapter 1, note 5.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Husserl’s Philosophie der Arithmetik was written in close relation to Frege’s GRL, as Frege’s Nachlaß,particularly, shows. There were misunderstandings between both thinkers, of course. See for instance Section 3.6, and even deeper differences may be indicated; cf. Section 2.26.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heidegger [4]: “G. Freges logisch-mathematische Forschungen sind meines Erachtens in ihrer wahren Bedeutung noch nicht gewürdigt, geschweige dann ausgeschöpft.” This was written in 1912. Heidegger rightly points out the significance of Frege’s notion of Begri f ft: (Reference provided by A. Battro.)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frege, Kleine Schriften (cf. bibliography).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    As far as I know, only Bartlett [1] and Sluga [1] provide extensive quotations from the Nachlaß; also Bochenski [1], 39.01.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kneale [1], p. 298; Bochenski [1], p. 297.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    For instance Wundt [1].Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cf. Wilpert [1], p. 89.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Above all Risse [1]. Examples of active research in the field are also: Schilling [1], Greniewski [1] (for Poland), Pereira Gomez [1] (for Portugal), Munoz Delgado [1] (for Spain), etc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1967

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ignacio Angelelli
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TexasUSA

Personalised recommendations