Frege demonstrates that logic defines truths rather than justifies its laws, highlighting a critical distinction.
It is hardly controversial to say that it is the task of logic to justify its laws. Frege appears to accept this idea—especially when he offers arguments for the truth of the basic laws in his Begriffsschrift . Yet Frege argues that logic cannot justify its basic laws—and hence, cannot justify any of its laws. This paper aims to resolve this apparent tension. I argue that, for Frege, the task of logic is not to justify its laws, but to determine which truths are logical. His arguments for the basic laws of Begriffsschrift are not meant to justify those laws. Rather, the purpose of these arguments is to present Frege's hypothesis about what logicality consists in.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Junyeol Kim (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: