Eric Sancho-Adamson

Writing primarily during the first half of the 18th century, Christian Wolff (1679-1754) and his philosophical system, ‘Wolffianism’, dominated the intellectual landscape to such an extent that during his own lifetime he became one of the most influential philosophers in all of Europe. He made substantial contributions to virtually every sub-field of philosophy (as well as to mathematics and natural science), shaped the way philosophy was practised in the German-speaking lands of Europe and beyond for decades if not centuries to come, and even had an influence on the German language itself. And yet, in the present day, Wolff is not a stable figure of the Western philosophical tradition. This is a tragedy, because Wolffianism had such an impact that a large and important piece of German philosophy’s history remains obscure unless we can come to better appreciate Wolff’s philosophy and the ideas to which it gave rise. Just how influential was Wolff’s philosophy? And how could it come to be that his philosophical system eventually became pushed into the background?

In Begriffsschrift, Frege presented a formal system and used it to formulate logical definitions of arithmetical notions and to deduce some noteworthy theorems by means of logical axioms and inference rules. From a contemporary perspective, Begriffsschrift’s deductions are, in general, straightforward; it is assumed that all of them can be reproduced in a second-order formal system. Some deductions in this work present—according to this perspective—oddities that have led many scholars to consider it to be Frege’s inaccuracies which should be amended. In this paper, we continue with the analysis of Begriffsschrift’s logic undertaken in an earlier work and argue that its deductive system must not be reconstructed as a second-order calculus. This leads us to argue that Begriffsschrift’s deductions do not need any correction but, on the contrary, can be explained in coherence with a global reading of this work and, in particular, with its fundamental distinction between function and argument.