Frege’s Two Views Towards Psychology

This paper argues that Gottlob Frege has two distinct views toward psychology. The first view is underappreciated. It consists in his dual claim that psychological and logical elements in thought are naturally intertwined and, furthermore, that his conceptual notation can be “scientifically justified” in terms of a psychological origin story. These claims are supported with evidence provided by an analysis of key elements of his logic in the Begriffsschrift, by a summary of the major psychological mechanisms presented in his first published defense of the Begriffsschrift: “On the Scientific Justification of a Conceptual Notation,” and by an appeal to textual evidence from his unpublished “Logic” (1879–1991). The second view is well known. It is his claim that there is a methodological imperative to isolate logic from psychological influences. This claim is developed in two ways: he proposes a contextualist semantics to reject any psychologistic dependence on ideas and also narrows the notion of content, with its reliance on ideas, to the notion of conceptual content which focuses on logical relations. Finally, it is argued that this narrowing provides the key elements of the framework for his criticisms of psychology in the Grundlagen.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy
Published
2026-01-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15173/jhap.v15i1.6686
Primary Topic
Philosophy, Science, and History
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Frege’s Two Views Towards Psychology

Lory Lemke
Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy
Philosophy, Science, and History
article

Frege’s Two Views Towards Psychology

Lory Lemke
article en

Abstract

This paper argues that Gottlob Frege has two distinct views toward psychology. The first view is underappreciated. It consists in his dual claim that psychological and logical elements in thought are naturally intertwined and, furthermore, that his conceptual notation can be “scientifically justified” in terms of a psychological origin story. These claims are supported with evidence provided by an analysis of key elements of his logic in the Begriffsschrift, by a summary of the major psychological mechanisms presented in his first published defense of the Begriffsschrift: “On the Scientific Justification of a Conceptual Notation,” and by an appeal to textual evidence from his unpublished “Logic” (1879–1991). The second view is well known. It is his claim that there is a methodological imperative to isolate logic from psychological influences. This claim is developed in two ways: he proposes a contextualist semantics to reject any psychologistic dependence on ideas and also narrows the notion of content, with its reliance on ideas, to the notion of conceptual content which focuses on logical relations. Finally, it is argued that this narrowing provides the key elements of the framework for his criticisms of psychology in the Grundlagen.

Journal for the History of Analytical PhilosophyVol. 15(1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 89%
Philosophy, Science, and History
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.