Abstract

Beth has tried to vindicate the kantian doctrine of mathematical intuition in the frame of contemporary logic. The paper proposes a critical evaluation of this attempt. The theory of mathematical intuition that is exposed in the Critic of Pure Reason is twofold: on one hand, the intuition of the "first principles", as it is analyzed in the Aesthetics, on the other hand, the intuition which is involved in the proofs, as it is analyzed in the Methodology. Contrasting with most defenders of Kant, who try to show that the first kind of intuition remains, in some way, compatible with the non-euclidean geometries, Beth wants to defend the second kind of intuition, by suggesting that it is nothing else than the "instanciation" method, well-known in the predicate calculus. I show that this strategy of defending Kant is unsuccessful.