Related Papers
In Two Dogmas of Empiricism W.V. Quine begins his attack on the an-alytic/synthetic dogma by criticizing Immanuel Kant's conception of analyticity. After dismissing Kant's interpretation as well as others, he articulates a view of the analytic/synthetic distinction that connects it đồ sộ the other dogma of empiri-cism, reductionism. Ultimately, Quine rejects both dogmas in favor of a new sườn of empiricism which subscribes đồ sộ neither one. Just as Quine believes it is possible đồ sộ accept empiricism without the dogmas, I will argue that the Kantian can accept both dogmas while avoiding the forms of empiricism that Quine considers in his article. The paper is broken into four sections. First, I offer a brief overview of the two dogmas and their relationship đồ sộ one another before examining Quine's argument against 'radical reductionism', i. e., the position that every meaningful sentence is translatable into a sentence about immediate experience that is either true or false. The second section shows how one of Kant's arguments from the Critique of Pure Reason anticipates the crux of Quine's argument against radical reductionism. What is left after this argument is only an 'attenu-ated form' of reductionism that Quine believes is identical đồ sộ the analytic/syn-thetic distinction. In the third section, I explain how Kantians can draw the an-alytic/synthetic distinction in a way that is consistent with this attenuated sườn of reductionism while avoiding the objections that Quine lodges against the two dogmas. I argue that this allows the Kantian đồ sộ accept the dogmas while avoiding both the radically reductive sườn of empiricism as well as the sườn of empiricism that Quine endorses (web-of-belief holism). Finally, I will consider how this Kantian version of the analytic/synthetic distinction can be extended beyond the theoretical tên miền đồ sộ practical and aesthetic sentences.
In this article I would lượt thích đồ sộ discuss the concept of a priori mainly focusing on Kant's Copernican revolution. How is metaphysics at all possible and how a priority takes place in Kantian metaphysics are the questions that I have addressed in the first part of my article. In this context, I have explained analytic, synthetic distinction from epistemological, metaphysical and semantical perspectives and I want đồ sộ show how the concept of a priori and other associated notions are derived from this different perspective.
Bạn đang xem: distinction la gi
In the Critique of Pure Reason Kant appears đồ sộ characterize analytic judgments in four distinct ways: once in terms of “containment,” a second time in terms of “identity,” a third time in terms of the explicative–ampliative contrast, and a fourth time in terms of the notion of “cognizability in accordance with the principle of contradiction.” The paper asks: Which of these characterizations—or apparent characterizations—best captures Kant’s conception of analyticity in the first Critique? It suggests: “the second.” It argues, further, that Kant’s distinction is intended đồ sộ apply only đồ sộ judgments of subject–predicate sườn, and that the fourth alleged characterization is not properly speaking a characterization at all. These theses are defended in the course of a more general investigation of the distinction’s meaning, its epistemology, and its tenability.
A B S T R A C T. Whereas for many truths, truthmaker theory offers a plausible tài khoản , there are certain kinds of truths for which the theory seems less helpful: principally (though not exclusively) analytic truths. I argue that an augmentation of the usual idea of truthmakers can solve this problem. Moreover that once solved we are able đồ sộ look afresh at the nature of mathematics, whether conceived as analytic or synthetic, necessary or contingent, and reduce the ontological options. I also argue that it was Quine's reformulation of analyticity, deployed in place of the correct Leibniz-Wolff-Kant tài khoản, that led đồ sộ his holistic tài khoản of knowledge and pragmatist tài khoản of scientific revisability.
Bình luận