Frege and Husserl are both recognized for their significant contributions to the overthrowing of logical psychologism, at least in its 19th century forms. Between Frege's profound impact on modern logic that extended the influence of his anti-psychologism and Husserl's extensive attempts at the refutation of logical psychologism in the Prolegomena to Logical Investigations, these arguments are generally understood as successful. This paper attempts to account for the development of these two anti-psychologistic conceptions of logical objects and for some of the basic differences between them. It identifies some problems that are common to strongly anti-psychologistic conceptions of logic and compares the extent to which Frege's and Husserl's views are open to these problems. Accordingly, this paper is divided into two parts. Part I develops a conception of the problems of logical psychologism as they are distinctively understood by each philosopher, out of the explicit arguments and criticisms made against the view in the texts. This conception is in each case informed by the overall historical trajectories of each philosopher's philosophical development. Part II examines the two views in light of common problems of anti-psychologism.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T17:27:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Lucas Kattah Macedo.pdf: 706900 bytes, checksum: da3ca8b84a3cccb7d501d2844e463b34 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-03-31 / This text aims to present a translation of the Chapter "The World of Ideas" of Hermann Lotze's Logic (1874), along with the translation of other extracts and with an introductory study for their understanding. Realize the importance of such work to the extent that we can grasp the concept of the philosopher's own logic, characterized by a theory of validity and an anti-psychologism / O presente trabalho tem como objetivo apresentar uma tradução do Capítulo O Mundo das Ideias da Lógica de Hermann Lotze (1874), juntamente com a tradução de outros excertos e com um estudo introdutório para a compreensão dos mesmos. Percebe-se a importância de tal trabalho na medida em que buscamos compreender a noção de lógica própria do autor, caracterizada por uma teoria da validade e por um anti-psicologismo

Cette étude constitue une interprétation de la philosophie de la logique de W. V. Quine à l’aune de ce que nous considérons comme étant un problème fondamental qui la gouverne et dont on peut considérer qu’elle en constitue une réponse. Ce problème a trait à la compatibilité entre logique et paroissial. Il admet la formulation condensée suivante : soit il y a un sens à dire que la logique est paroissiale, mais alors le paroissial se trouve être une restriction et est en droit éliminable ; soit le paroissial n’est pas une restriction et est inéliminable, mais alors il n’y a aucun sens à dire que la logique est paroissiale. Le problème se nourrit de ce que la qualification de la logique comme paroissiale fait l’objet d’une revendication explicite et délibérée par Quine, i.e. n’est ni de l’ordre d’une concession, ni de l’ordre d’un moment argumentatif dialectiquement résorbable. En d’autres termes, Quine revendique et cherche à se donner les moyens de revendiquer ce contre quoi une conception « universaliste » de la logique comme celle de Frege lutte, ordonnée qu’elle est à un présupposé ou une prémisse anti-paroissialiste d’unicité de la logique. Affirmer que Quine cherche à se donner les moyens de revendiquer la paroissialité de la logique, c’est dire qu’il prit tout à fait au sérieux les arguments anti-psychologistes de Frege contre toute conception paroissiale de la logique. Plus généralement,cette étude et la lecture de la conception quinienne de la logique que nous y proposons sont organisées par le principe d’une lecture frégéenne de Quine : si nous voulons comprendre ce que signifie de dire que la logique est paroissiale chez Quine, alors il faut revenir à Frege, que ce soit par la manière dont Quine s’y oppose ou par la manière dont il s’approprie certains thèmes et principes fondamentaux de la conception frégéenne de la logique. Cette étude consiste alors à mettre au jour et à examiner les raisons et les modalités de la revendication par Quine d’une paroissialité de la logique. Tout en étant ordonnés au traitement du problème de l’incompatibilité apparente du paroissial et de la logique, les cinq chapitres qui la composent parcourent successivement la critique de « Truth by Convention » du projet syntaxique de Carnap et de son principe de tolérance (chapitre 1), la philosophie de la notation logique de Quine (chapitre 2), le point de vue anthropologique en matière de logique que Quine fait sien (chapitre 3), le critère d’engagement ontologique (chapitre 4) et, enfin, la définition substitutionnelle de la vérité logique (chapitre 5). / This study is an interpretation of W.V. Quine’s philosophy of logic taken as an answer to what we consider to be a fundamental problem. This problem has to do with the compatibility between logic and parochial. It can be briefly expressed in the following manner: either that there is sense in saying that logic is parochial, but the parochial therefore happens to be a restriction and could be eliminated, or that the parochial is not a restriction and could not be eliminated, but that there is thus no sense in saying that logic is parochial. The problem is fueled by the fact that Quine explicitly and deliberately claims logic to be parochial. Such a qualification is neither a concession nor an argumentative moment that could be dialectically reduced. In other words, what Quine claims – and is seeking means to claim – is precisely that which a “universalist” conception of logic like Frege’s challenges, since it assumes an anti-parochial premise concerning the uniqueness of logic. Quine seeks means to claim the parochiality of logic in the sense that he seriously considered Frege’s anti-psychologist arguments against all parochial conceptions of logic. More generally, this study – and the understanding of Quine's conception of logic that it promotes – follows the principle of a Fregean reading of Quine: if one wants to understand what it means to say that logic is parochial in Quine, one has to go back to Frege, either through Quine’s opposition to him or through his appropriation of certain themes and fundamental principles of the Fregean conception of logic. Connected to the problem of the apparent incompatibility of logic and the parochial, the five chapters contained within this study successively explore the criticism of Carnap’s syntaxical project and of its principle of tolerance found in “Truth by Convention” (chapter 1); Quine’s philosophy of logical notation (chapter 2); the anthropological point of view in logic that Quine makes his own (chapter 3); the criterion of ontological commitment (chapter 4) and the substitutional definition of logical truth (chapter 5).