/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11840797]

What's the difference between the analytic/synthetic distinction and the a priori/a posteriori distinction?

[Anonymous No.11840912]

>>11840797
analytic truths are true by definition
synthetic truths aren't

a priori truths can be known independent of experience
a posteriori truths can't

[Anonymous No.11840919]

Nick Land once wrote a lengthy paragraph on that which I read, admired and then forgot

[Anonymous No.11840928]

>>11840797
analytic is deduction, it is analysis of a thing, synthetic is combining two things that aren't contained within a whole

a priori is before experience, things which are necessarily true. a posteriori is things which are found to be true by experience

Kant was on about the a priori synthetic statements, statements which combine two different things but are nonetheless necessarily true. He gives mathematical addition as an example. He goes on to meme about the 'categories' of our understanidng which are related to these a priori synthetic propositions, ie, necessarily true, the form of our reality. He says time and space are also just the form of our reality because whatever why not.

If you are wondering whether you should bother with this the answer is no

[Anonymous No.11840944]

An example of an analytic proposition " two and two makes four"

An example of a synthetic proposition "my computer is on this desk"

To arrive at the truth in the former, you simply need to look at the statement, it yield truth through analysis alone. To arrive at the truth of the latter, you have to inspect the world and compare that it does indeed match the statement, hence it is synthetic, the combination of two pieces of information.

a priori truths are truths that are known through reason alone such as mathematics. A posterori truths must rely on sense data for verification, such as the truths of science.

[Anonymous No.11840953]

>>11840944
>a priori truths are truths that are known through reason alone such as mathematics. A posterori truths must rely on sense data for verification, such as the truths of science.

Does it then follow that all statements in science are a posterori? But wouldn't this statement be a priori? Can science rely on an a priori truth to justify its reliance on a posterori propositions? Does this make a difference?

[Anonymous No.11840961]

>>11840944
To be sure, one might initially think that the proposition "7 + 5 = I 2 "
is a merely analytic proposition that follows from the concept of a sum
of seven and five in accordance with the principle of contradiction. Yet
if one considers it more closely, one finds that the concept of the sum
of 7 and 5 contains nothing more than the unification of both numbers
in a single one, through which it is not at all thought what this single
number is which comprehends the two of them. The concept of twelve
is by no means already thought merely by my thinking of that unification
of seven and five, and no matter how long I analyze my concept of
such a possible sum I will still not find twelve in it. One must go beyond
these concepts, seeking assistance in the intuition that corresponds to
one of the two, one's five fingers, say, or (as in Segner's arithmetic)!7 five
points, and one after another add the units of the five given in the intuition
to the concept of seven. cF or I take first the number 7, and, as I
take the fingers of my hand as an intuition for assistance with the concept
of 5, to that image of mine I now add the units that I have previB
16 ously taken together in order to constitute the number 5 one after
another to the number 7, and thus see the number I2 arise. That 7
should be added to 5 I have, to be sure, thought in the concept of a sum
= 7 + 5, but not that this sum is equal to the number I 2. The arithmetical
proposition is therefore always synthetic; one becomes all the
more distinctly aware of that if one takes somewhat larger numbers, for
it is then clear that, twist and turn our concepts as we will, without getting
help from intuition we could never find the sum by means of the
mere analysis of our concepts.


Pg 144.(157 of the pdf)
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kant-first-critique-cambridge.pdf

[Anonymous No.11840965]

>>11840928
Dumb question, but is Kant a Platonist?

[Anonymous No.11840968]

>>11840944
>An example of an analytic proposition " two and two makes four"
Well, not according to Kant

[Anonymous No.11841023]

>>11840965
no I think he's a Kantian

[Anonymous No.11841216]

>>11840912
>>11840928
>>11840944
thanks lads

[Anonymous No.11841676]

>>11840928
you cant prove something is necessarily true though.. its a bad word..

[Anonymous No.11842876]

>>11840797
who fucking cares it was made by some german goblin

[Anonymous No.11842907]

A priori synthetic truths is a complicated way of saying "things we can know prior to experience", or "things we can know without learning them from the world / by interacting with the world"

Kant is interested in base truths of human consciousness that are also not deductive truths like "A = A." He is interested in what the mind can know for certain, when it abstracts from the world entirely, and whether this certain knowledge (truth) can be built into a system.

[Anonymous No.11843297]

>>11840797
Analytic truths are true by necessity. That is, they're true by virtue of their logical form (i.e. A=A). Synthetic truths can be defined as being non-analytic. So a statement which isn't true by necessity is a synthetic truth (i.e. I am living in Canada).

A priori truths are statements known through reason alone, whereas A posteriori truths are known through observation and experience.

[Anonymous No.11843686]

>>11840797
Damn Kant looked like that? Why the fuck do people still care about him?