Yeah, but there was no such discovery for bachelors. — Jamal
Hm, not sure about all that.
But I’ll leave it there for now. I have enough mental plates to juggle. — Jamal
That is to say, a triangle necessitates it being three sides in all possible worlds. However, the discovery of this truth is in some way synthetic when first discovered. The passing on of this discovery as a convention that we learn very early on, makes it "analytic", but this is only the way we discover the information. — schopenhauer1
In the beginning, someone discovered something that had three sides and it had no name. They didn't discover a "triangle", they discovered something that had three sides. The statement "triangles have three sides" would have been meaningless, as the word "triangle" didn't exist. — RussellA
They named this something with three sides "a triangle", though they could equally well have named it "a circle".
Once named, as the statement "triangles have three sides" is true by virtue of the meanings of the words alone, it is therefore an analytic statement.
IE, when the statement "triangles have three sides" first occurred, it was already an analytic statement. — RussellA
Right, but the key idea here is they discovered something about the concept first. — schopenhauer1
The value of this promise depends on how well we understand the supervenience relation itself. If it is a dangling, inexplicable, metaphysical fact that the Fs relate in this way to the Gs, then supervenience inherits rather than solves the problems of understanding the various areas. — supervenience
Indeed, I do not. I think you understand that a child knows its mother, without the child being able to provide a definition. Especially since you went on to talk of a further instance of understanding a concept without being able to provide a definition, this time from Russell.You may not believe me... — RussellA
I doubt he would, since existence is not bound to individual worlds. — Banno
Even if the world contained no notion of marriage, the notion of marriage would remain possible, and hence bachelors would still be possible. It gets complicated. — Banno
I might even say it is superficially analytic. — schopenhauer1
Quine's point is that all analytic statements are superficially so. — Banno
The sky is blue is synthetic a posteriori because it is discovered but true only by way of the content we pick out and not by way of how our faculties must operate. An X is NOT not X is analytic a priori as not only is it true by our faculties but the very terms don’t need to be discovered but are true immediately based on how logic operates a priori. — schopenhauer1
Again, it seems to me you have not grasped the gist of Quine's argument — Banno
Indeed, why take the triangle as being important? What rule was followed? And even if triangles are taken as primal, why not AME or AJK? What counts as prime depends on the task in hand. — Banno
For the Direct Realist, the sky is objectively blue, in which case the statement "the sky is blue" is synthetic and refers to a world that is external to the mind.
However, for the Indirect Realist, as the sky is not objectively blue, but only subjectively blue, the statement "the sky is blue" is still synthetic but refers to a world that exists in the mind and not external to the mind. — RussellA
Using the convention of "snow is white" is true IFF snow is white, perhaps one could say:
"the sky is blue" is synthetic, the sky is blue is a posteriori, "an X is NOT not X" is analytic and an X is NOT not X is a priori.
"The sky is blue" being synthetic brings in the debate between Indirect and Direct Realism — RussellA
This muddled stuff about subject and object is, for my money, off-topic. — Banno
Seems to me bringing vague, muddled notions of objective and subjective into the discussion can only lead to it becoming vague and muddled. — Banno
a) Chomsky's view on analyticity as described in your OP article is just that. — schopenhauer1
Seems to me bringing vague, muddled notions of objective and subjective into the discussion can only lead to it becoming vague and muddled. — Banno
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.