Reference to Quine; In response to Paul

Reference to Quine; In response to Paul
Nikola89
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 09, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2
#1 - Quote - Permalink
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 9, 2011 - 1:57 AM:
Subject: Reference to Quine; In response to Paul
Paul wrote:
'All cats are mammals' is more analytic than the average sentence. For example, it's more analytic than 'It will rain here tomorrow' (except if you're in Florida, in which case I suppose that's equally analytic... which makes for a nice illustration of context). By this 'more analytic' I can only mean that it says less of its own and more of definitions or relation between definitions. It conveys less original information therefore it is more analytic. (So you might say that by 'more analytic' I mean 'less synthetic'.)


Okay..yes all cats are mammals is an example of something I would consider analytic. As is "All bachelors are unmarried men." What's your point?

paul wrote:

In no way does this make it some pure Platonic form of analyticity. This is because it is not entirely meaningless -- the application of it to experience is meaningful. By experience I mean both experience of cats and mammals and language itself, as language is a sort of experience which has a system of its own in which we're interested in seeing how things interact.


This paragraph makes no prominent point and is very confusing.

paul wrote:

People like Tecno will continue to mistake such statements for being pure forms of the absolute analytic because on one level they understand the meaning but at the same time they play games by covering up all the meaning to imagine the idealistic true form behind the sentence. If you ask them if it's meaningful, they'll think of the meaning... if you ask them if it's analytic, they'll cover up what they just finished considering and only look at the form they see that it can be represented in. In this case, in a system of only positive numbers: x + y >= x. That conveys the essential form of 'All cats are mammals'. X = defining characteristics of mammals = mammals. X + Y = defining characteristics of mammals + other defining characteristics of cats = cat. Or perhaps more simply, we might just say that x = y if we cover up the part of x which is beyond y. (In the case of the letter, the lower right.) Cat = mammal if you exclude the aspects of cat which are extraneous to the issue. If you have 5 stones, you have 2 stones also because you can cover up the other 3.


okay.. Cat's are mammals by simply the definition of mammals and by "virtue of it's meanings". But continue.
paul wrote:

You have two honest options:
1) Take into consideration the experience of actual cats and the results the statement nicely sums up about their similarities to our experiences of other animals, which have caused us to define a class to represent our experience of certain similarities. This renders the proposition clearly synthetic, in that this meaning goes far beyond anything implied by the law of non-contradiction. And remember, of course, that the dogmatic definition of the analytic restricts it to that which directly follows from the law of non-contradiction.


So it's impossible to think that we saw one animal, made an observation and labeled it? Off of this first observation we encountered further animals to add into a list. Instead of going out and finding every single similarities and animals. That's beyond the point, you are assuming that use of experience automatically renders a proposition synthetic. Kant never stated "analytic statements are those that were created absent of experience", Kant's whole philosophy accepts the notion of knowledge through experience. What Kant explains as analytic statements in dealing with experience is that "immediate" experience is not needed.

If you know what a cat is, and you know what a mammal is then you do not need to experience the statement to make it valid. Take for example "All triangles have three sides" you cannot think of a triangle without thinking of three sides. Did this analytic statement just appear? Obviously through experience some one made the definitions. The point is that you do not need to find a triangle or draw one to understand the statement. "All bachelors are happy" is synthetic because happy and bachelor are not same in meaning or definition.


paul wrote:

or, 2) Speak only of the equation above, and render it meaningless. The entire purpose of an equation is to put up a giant flag saying "internal purposes only: taken as a whole, no proposition arises from this". The beauty and usefulness of an equation is entirely due to the fact that all the different equations are varied sentences which reduce to the same proposition -- or more accurately, the same lack of proposition.


Okay..

paul wrote:

To say something is more analytic is simply to say that the context of the words involved have closer associations. To just call something analytic without the 'more' or 'less' is either wrong or assumes a context where the listener has an average level of being analytic in mind to compare with.


How? In what way is "All bachelors are unmarried men" --more-- analytic than "All triangles have three sides"?

paul wrote:


We may note that without an analytic/synthetic distinction there'd be no way to gain a description of the other one, considering description relies on comparison and contrast. So it might seem as though we should have a nameless merged item, instead of holding up the synthetic as the victor over an opponent who never existed and yet gave to contrast which provided the meaning of the term 'synthetic'. We need a term, sure, but it might seem that both analytic and synthetic could be used just as easily so long as we understand that whichever one we use is not absolute. Strictly speaking this may be a valid point, but this history of the usage of the words makes it practical to favor using the term 'synthetic'. The reason why the analytic must be done away with instead of the synthetic is simply that people mistake 'analytic' for being an absolute concept... they don't tend to make the same mistake with 'synthetic' so the latter term is less dangerous to use.



Show me an analytic statement that is not an absolute truth.
stax
Unmoderated Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: In a possible world near you.

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 339
#2 - Quote - Permalink
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 9, 2011 - 5:31 AM:

Paul knows little to nothing of Quine, Two Dogmas of Empiricism and anlyticity, and neither do you Nikola89.

Paul's arguments you copied and pasted above, and your replies to them, make me weep.
Nikola89
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 09, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2
#3 - Quote - Permalink
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 9, 2011 - 3:10 PM:

Well I'm glad you replied with such knowledge of your own and I'm glad I know nothing about a "linguistic" philosopher who is wrong.

Analyticity, I do know.
stax
Unmoderated Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: In a possible world near you.

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 339
#4 - Quote - Permalink
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 9, 2011 - 6:57 PM:

Nikola89 wrote:
Well I'm glad you replied with such knowledge of your own and I'm glad I know nothing about a "linguistic" philosopher who is wrong.

Analyticity, I do know.

No worries, champ, I call things as I see them (coupled with my expert knowledge on the matter).
Brainglitche
It's glit-CHAY, dammit.

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 5825
#5 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 2 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 10, 2011 - 2:04 PM:

You guys realize the disputed post from Paul is 8 years old, right?
stax
Unmoderated Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2009
Location: In a possible world near you.

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 339
#6 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 12, 2011 - 4:21 AM:

brainpharte wrote:
You guys realize the disputed post from Paul is 8 years old, right?

Cool, so it's cleared up then:
Paul was wrong 8 years ago.
Nikola is wrong now.
locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.