It seems bewildering because it's clearly false, and you're defending it apparently with a misreading of Kripke. Im not sure of any reasonable way to claim that France's capital being Paris is an essential property of France. In fact it seems insane. Maybe you can explain why you think that? — The Great Whatever
When we say something's an empirical proposition, we mean roughly it pertains to some contingent matter of fact that might have been otherwise. Clearly Paris doesn't have to be the capital of France. It's synthetic a posteriori pretty uncontroversially on anyone's standards.
It may not be an epistemic possibility, in that wwhat we know about France rules out that the actual world is one in which some place other than Paris is the nation's capital. But this is true of all sorts of empirical propositions. It's an empirical proposition that the sun is shining here and now, like you said, but given what I know about today's weather, there is no serious epistemic possibility that it isn't. — The Great Whatever
I am unable to form an opinion on whether mathematics is learned synthetically, because I don't know what 'synthetic' means. If I did, I would then know what 'analytic' means, since my understanding is that they are supposed to be antonyms.If you think math is learned synthetically, then you're going to deny this.
No. It wouldn't commit me to saying France can't change its capital. Among the essential features of what we call France is that for a period of time (including this date), Paris was its capital. Pretty simple.I don't know what would possess someone to think that Paris being the capital of France is one of France's essential properties: this would commit you, among other things, to believing that France cannot change its capital, without being destroyed, which is false. — The Great Whatever
No. It wouldn't commit me to saying France can't change its capital. Among the essential features of what we call France is that for a period of time (including this date), Paris was its capital. Pretty simple. — Mongrel
Here's the first part of section IV of the intro to CPR (first edition):'Synthetic' means requiring the use of experience — TGW
To me, that says they are antonyms. I also note that he does not mention experience.In all judgements wherein the relation of a subject to the predicate is cogitated (I mention affirmative judgements only here; the application to negative will be very easy), this relation is possible in two different ways. Either the predicate B belongs to the subject A, as somewhat which is contained (though covertly) in the conception A; or the predicate B lies completely out of the conception A, although it stands in connection with it. In the first instance, I term the judgement analytical, in the second, synthetical — Immanuel Kant
Can you provide an example of one? I have never seen an attempted definition. People just seem to assume that its meaning is obvious - which it isn't.you can define this containment relation is various ways — TGW
I think of "empirical" as a type of justification. You're talking about actuality. I think I understand what you're saying. Say I toss a die... however many possibilities I claim exist prior to its landing, there's only one possibility when it does land. Right?An empirical possibility is something that it is really possible could be an empirical actuality. — John
To me, that says they are antonyms. I also note that he does not mention experience. — andrewk
Can you provide an example of one? I have never seen an attempted definition. People just seem to assume that it's meaning is obvious - which it isn't. — andrewk
Except it's not, because we can say things like, 'if France's capital had been Cannes right now...' This would be literally unintelligible if it were an essential property of France to have Paris as its capital during some stretch of time. — The Great Whatever
Paris is not defined as the capital of France in any way. It is the capital of France, but that is not the same thing. — The Great Whatever
one of the definitions of the name 'Paris' is 'capital of France'. — John
In any case you still haven't told us how the purportedly merely empirical proposition 'Paris is the capital of France' could be falsified. — John
Yes, it can. That is Kripke's whole point, and the point of rigid designation, that the name denotes the same individual across possible worlds. — The Great Whatever
The actual France (whose capital is Paris) can not be identical to an alternate France (whose capital is Caen). That's pretty basic. It's two different objects. — Mongrel
The rigid designator identifies an object across all possible worlds in which that object exists. Not all possible worlds period. Many possible worlds don't have the thing we call France (with its Paris capital.) — Mongrel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.