synthetic a priori relations — Mww
Cheers, done.Metaphysical terms needs an edit. — Mww
The suggestion is that Kant took necessary and a priori to be interchangeable….. — Banno
…..and similarly for a posteriori and contingent. — Banno
There's this additional complication, the use of "synthetic" and "analytic" in the place of "necessary" and "contingent".
This seems to be equating a grammatical difference with a modal one. — Banno
The a posteriori is always contingent, through the principle of induction, but again……interchangeable? — Mww
So suppose our language were the whole of mathematics, and we adopted a constructivist position, such that a mathematical theorem is true only if there is a proof that it is true. We can adopt the antirealist position that the Goldberg Conjecture, since it is unproven, has the truth value "meh" - is neither truth nor false. — Banno
So according to Kripke, that Hesperus is Phosphorus is known a posteriori, yet not contingent. — Banno
So there is disagreement between you and Kripke? — Banno
It is therefore an analytical cognition, hence necessarily true, that Phosporus is Hesperus — Mww
I am surprised….. — RussellA
As I could have chosen any name, the connection between the name "Phosphorus" and "Venus" and between "Hesperus" and "Venus" are contingent. — RussellA
It’s is an empirical fact Phosporus is Venus, and, it is an empirical fact Hesperus is Venus. It is therefore an analytical cognition, hence necessarily true, that Phosporus is Hesperus, in that it is just saying Venus is Venus. — Mww
But it is nevertheless contingent, re: not necessary, that the second planet from the sun is called out by any of the names Venus, Phosporus or Hesperus, such names arbitrarily determined by whoever took it upon himself to assign them. — Mww
“… Secondly, an empirical judgement never exhibits strict and absolute, but only assumed and comparative universality (by induction); therefore, the most we can say is—so far as we have hitherto observed, there is no exception to this or that rule. If, on the other hand, a judgement carries with it strict and absolute universality, that is, admits of no possible exception, it is not derived from experience, but is valid absolutely à priori.…” — Mww
Knowledge is experience, experience is always changing with time, so knowledge is always changing with time, therefore knowledge is contingent on time. — Mww
But he’s famous, got letters after his name, might even hold a chair, and I’m none of that, so….. — Mww
Are we up to the wooden lectern? — frank
If one had done so, one would have made, of course, a different object. It would not have been this very lectern, and so one would not have a case in which this very lectern here was made of ice, or was made from water from the Thames. — kripke
Kripke asks "could this lectern have been made of ice?" His answer is that it is entirely possible that the lectern before us is made of ice, but that if this were so it would be a different lectern. — Banno
...could this very lectern have been made from the very beginning of its existence from ice, say frozen from water in the Thames? — Kripke
Cheers. — Banno
Let me therefore emphasize that, although an essential property is (trivially) a property without which an object cannot be a, it by no means follows that the essential. purely qualitative properties of a jointly form a sufficient conditionf or being a, nor that any purely qualitative conditions are sufficient for an object to be a. Further even if necessary and sufficient qualitative conditions for an object to be Nixon may exist, there would still be little justification for the demand for a purely qualitative description of al counterfactual situations. We can ask whether Nixon might have been a Democrat without engaging in these subtleties. — Footnote 13
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.