Philosophy Forums
Forums Articles Gallery Links


Register Login Members Calendar New Posts Search Chat Help
Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Analytic-synthetic vs priori/ posteriori » Analytic-synthetic vs priori/ posteriori

Analytic-synthetic vs priori/ posteriori

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

Analytic-synthetic vs priori/ posteriori
hellohello
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 9
Posted 07/01/09 - 11:47 PM:
Subject: Analytic-synthetic vs priori/ posteriori 		quote post
#1
Hello

I dimly suspect my question is a very basic one so please bear with me.

I recently began studying Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. From my understanding Kant seems to distinguish between four types of propositions: analytic a priori, synthetic a priori, analytic a posteriori, and synthetic a posteriori. Kant discards analytic a posteriori as a self contradiction and does not evaluate it further. I however find synthetic a priori contradictory as well. It seems to me that what knowledge obtained through analytic means is inherently a priori and what is obtained through synthetic means is inherently a posteriori. And thus there would only be two viable propositions, analytic a priori and synthetic a posteriori.

Any response would be appreciated.
jtoma
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 34
Posted 07/02/09 - 12:58 AM:
quote post
#2
I don't think your question is basic, but I myself am very basic. Not pretending to understand Kant, someone told me that one part of Kant's project was to show that it was sensible to talk of the synthetic a priori.

I don't quite understand what 'synthetic' means but I understand it to oppose 'analytic'. An analytic proposition, loosely, is a proposition which if true, then it is true by virtue of the meanings of its words. Kant, I think, takes an analytic proposition to be one in which the predicate concept is contained in the subject concept.

If synthetic opposes analytic and 'analytic' means if true, then by virtue of meaning, then does 'synthetic' mean if true, not by virtue of meaning? Under this conception of synthetic, if a proposition were synthetic and true, not by virtue of the meaning of its words, then what use would the meaning of its words be, if not to represent its truth? Could we communicate a synthetic and true proposition with language that did not represent the proposition with its meaning?

This speculation leads me to wonder if a synthetic proposition can't be linked to learning by virtue of an increase of knowledge concerning the meanings in an expression's language.



Edited by jtoma on 07/08/09 - 12:47 PM
keda
Ijon Tichy
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3640
Posted 07/02/09 - 01:38 AM:
quote post
#3
If a priori synthetic is a contradiction in terms likewise analytic aposteriori, the two distinctions would collapse into one, as they would be synonyms. However they are not. A priori means, independent of experience, a posteriori, dependent on experience. Analytic, true by virtue of meaning, synthetic, not true by virtue of meaning.
All about making money
Free Europe Now How to fix your country
In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer
180 Proof
kynic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5116
Posted 07/02/09 - 03:55 AM:
quote post
#4
keda wrote:
If a priori synthetic is a contradiction in terms likewise analytic aposteriori, the two distinctions would collapse into one, as they would be synonyms. However they are not. A priori means, independent of experience, a posteriori, dependent on experience. Analytic, true by virtue of meaning, synthetic, not true by virtue of meaning.


"A priori = independent of" experience (i.e. spatiotemporality)

"Synthetic = true by" differentiation (i.e. composition, complexity, change, etc)

Experience <--> differentiation

"Synthetic a priori" = ???

neutral

hellohello wrote:
I however find synthetic a priori contradictory as well. It seems to me that what knowledge obtained through analytic means is inherently a priori and what is obtained through synthetic means is inherently a posteriori.


Yeah. (But perhaps keda will square this circle for us ... rolling eyes )

Edited by 180 Proof on 07/02/09 - 04:11 AM. Reason: Dumb luck ...
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?"

Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence.

[What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]
keda
Ijon Tichy
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3640
Posted 07/02/09 - 04:43 AM:
quote post
#5
Well, you can always redefine a term here and a term there to prove whatever sentence you like, however not whatever point you like. But lets say experience <--> differentiation is true. Is this true by virtue of meaning or not? If it isn't by virtue of meaning, synthetic a priori is still not therefore a contradiction. If it is true by virtue of meaning, it would be a contradiction, but it would be a contradiction in your personal interpretation of Kant.
All about making money
Free Europe Now How to fix your country
In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer
180 Proof
kynic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5116
Posted 07/02/09 - 05:17 AM:
quote post
#6
keda wrote:
Well, you can always redefine a term here and a term there to prove whatever sentence you like, however not whatever point you like.


Of course, you're free to dispute my (flagrant) synonymity. wink

But lets say experience <--> differentiation is true.


Mmmm lets ...

Is this true by virtue of meaning or not?


Neither.

If it isn't by virtue of meaning, synthetic a priori is still not therefore a contradiction.


Not a contradiction (e.g. indicative) but nonsense (e.g. performative). "2 + 2 = 4" is an operation that's performed like a musical score. A performance (that's) "independent of experience" (i.e. synthetic a priori) makes no sense.

If it is true by virtue of meaning, it would be a contradiction, but it would be a contradiction in your personal interpretation of Kant.


But is my "personal interpretation" incorrect? If not, then you must agree. If it is, explain where I've gone wrong.
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?"

Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence.

[What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]
keda
Ijon Tichy
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3640
Posted 07/02/09 - 05:59 AM:
quote post
#7
180 Proof wrote:

Neither.

Why is this?

Not a contradiction (e.g. indicative) but nonsense (e.g. performative). "2 + 2 = 4" is an operation that's performed like a musical score. A performance (that's) "independent of experience" (i.e. synthetic a priori) makes no sense.

I see, although I would say rather than "2 + 2 = 4" being a performance I would say it is a proposition of what a performance will accomplish. The + operator denoting the performance of adding and 2 and 4 denoting performances of counting. I suppose you could say a priori synthetic judgments are are similar to this inthat they are about some performance(s), although I wouldn't say they are performances themselves.

But is my "personal interpretation" incorrect?

Well, if you think Kant is making a performance rather than a statement then I guess you don't need an interpretation.
All about making money
Free Europe Now How to fix your country
In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer
cosscos
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2008

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 171
Posted 07/02/09 - 06:59 AM:
quote post
#8
A priori synthetic proposition is gained by one's trancendental aesthetic experience, according to Kant.

It is said the proposition is justified as truth through the a priori which is , I believe, related to intellectual medium for realization concerning substance and essence.
xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 840
Posted 07/02/09 - 07:36 AM:
quote post
#9
On fear of being either too obvious or too simplistic.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/#Kan

As people have said, a priori/a posteriori is one dichotomy and analytic/synthetic is another. The terms have some relationship to one another, but they do not arise by virtue of one another.

A priori relates to being prior to experience. For whatever your opinion on numbers, one might say that "a natural number is any non-negative whole number (including 0)". What experience might you have that would justify this definition? Most people (though I am not one of them) would argue that such a definition is true regardless of experience.

Now we have a concept that is a priori in the a priori/posteriori dichotomy.

What of this statement being analytic or synthetic? Here is where the trouble comes in and I elect to side step the trouble. Suffice it to say, according to Kant something is in the pale of analytic or in the pale of synthetic.

The example often given is that of addition: 7+5=12. We have a subject "7+5" and we have a predicate "is 12". The analytic/synthetic distinction turns upon the relationship of the subject to the predicate. If the predicate is understood in terms of the subject (the predicate is "contained" in the subject) and a negation of the predicate would be to negate the subject, the statement is analytic. If not, then the statement is synthetic.

For ease of subject, consider a set of objects, Z, that contains the elements {5, 6, c}.

Now the statement, "An object from set Z may be either 5 or 6."

There is no experience that is required for the truth of our statement, so it is certainly a priori. But what of it being analytic or synthetic? You could negate the predicate, "An object from set Z may not be either 5 or 6", but does that negate the subject? Couldn't an object from set Z be c? Does set Z contian the numbers 5 and 6?

Try to describe the above sentence as being analytic. If you can't, assume you have found a synthetic a priori statement.

For all you that know better, feel free to correct me where appropriate or take up the task of showing how the suggested sentence is non-synthetic.




Edited by xzJoel on 07/02/09 - 09:52 AM
Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.
jtoma
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 34
Posted 07/02/09 - 09:38 AM:
quote post
#10
xzJoel wrote:

For ease of subject, consider a set of objects, Z, that contains the elements {5, 6, c}.

Now the statement, "An object from set Z may be either 5 or 6."

There is no experience that is required for the truth of our statement, so it is certainly a priori. But what of it being analytic or synthetic? You could negate the predicate, "An object from set Z may not be either 5 or 6", but does that negate the subject? Couldn't an object from set Z be c? Do the numbers 5 and 6 contain set Z?


'An object from set Z may be either 5 or 6' and 'An object from set Z may be neither 5 nor 6' are both truth by virtue of the definition of the set. (Negating the predicate does not negate the subject: Saying that neither 5 nor 6 are from set Z does not prohibit their being contained in set Z. Think of 5 and 6 as the members of Z not picked up and looked at. If you don't think of 'from set Z' in this way then 'An object from set Z may not be either 5 or 6' is false.)


Edited by jtoma on 07/08/09 - 12:59 PM
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.

Powered by WSN Forum

The time is now 11/20/09 - 09:03 PM.