Why does Frege claim that logical axioms are ‘self-evident,’ to be recognized as true ‘independently of other truths,’ and then offer arguments for those axioms? I argue that he thinks the arguments provide us with the justification that we need for accepting the axioms and that this is compatible with his remarks about self-evidence. This compatibility depends on philosophical considerations connected with the ‘critical method’: an interesting approach to the justification of axioms endorsed by leading philosophers at the time.

中文翻译：

---

弗雷格对公理的批判性论证

为什么弗雷格声称逻辑公理是“不言而喻的”，被认为是“独立于其他真理”的真实，然后为这些公理提供论据？我认为他认为这些论证为我们提供了接受这些公理所需的理由，并且这与他关于不言自明的评论是相容的。这种兼容性取决于与“批判方法”相关的哲学考虑：一种有趣的方法来证明当时领先的哲学家所认可的公理的正当性。