Abstract

The paper examines J. Hintikka’s thesis that Euclid’s procedure of geometrical proof had been «paradigm» or «model» for Kant’s notion of the mathematical method. The detailed re-construction of the researcher’s arguments allows to reveal Hintikka’s main thesis, namely, that écthesis as a structural element of Euclidean proposition allows explanation of Kant’s notion of construction. However, in-depth analysis of Euclidean proof structure, compared also with Proclus’ and Th. Heath’s comments, shows that terminologically and functionally this element does not perform its supposed role of construction and is not fundamental to the struc-ture of proposition. Also Hintikka’s thesis that intuition is just a representation of the individu-al has weak explanatory potential because Kant’s explication of construction is always correla-tive with intuition a priori, that is, with imagination of a geometric concept in space as a form of pure intuition. In conclusion, the author mentions the three sources of Hintikka’s interpreta-tion that could be links between Kant and ancient origins of the mathematical method: notion of construction by Ch. A. Hausen, translation of the «Elements» by J. F. Lorenz and J. Ch. Schwab’s considerations concerning the structure of geometric proof.