concepts and terms, "analytic judgments" and "synthetic judgments"
All trial is an act which affirms or denies the existence of something, linking two terms (one, the subject , the other the predicate ) through intercourse is . Reasoning differs from that this is the union of two or more trials, and as Aristotle said the trial represents a term or half step between the concept and that first. Friday, March 13, 2009
Real Looking Animated Pic
Immanuel Kant, who analyzed the trials as a thinking activity, popularized in his Critique of Pure Reason the famous distinction analytical and synthetic . Judgments (or statements, or propositions) are those who possess analytical concept of predicate contained in the subject, being that belongs to it, and set both an identity. For its part, synthetic judgments the predicate of the proposition does not fall within the subject nor a relation to it.
For example, the trial "all roses are red" is clearly analytic, since the concept 'red' is the predicate on the concept 'red rose' of the predicate. But if we say that "roses are red" we are making a synthetic view, since the concept 'red' is not entirely contained in the concept 'pink' (among other things, of course, because there are not red roses). In addition, we can construct the negation of a sentence so the subject-predicate, provided it is not analytical. We can thus say "not all roses are red", and it is a valid synthetic judgments, but you can not do so in an analytical view, because, in fact, if we say that "not all roses are red red "fall in an obvious contradiction, since it implies that" some roses are and are not red, "which is absurd.
Karl Popper, in his book Objective Knowledge, summed up the division of statements as follows:
appear in this box a couple of terms ( priori and a posteriori ) that we have seen previously . What is here said is that all analytical view implies an a priori (the arrows in the figure means, precisely, if ... then ...), while a synthetic can only be a posteriori, that is because the truth of trials depends on their nature: that of the laboratory always detected a priori (that is, its truth we know by our reason), and the synthetic a posteriori (that is, by virtue of our experience.) In the latter, Feed the subject predicate, increasing our knowledge (are extensive type) and producing a progress of knowledge about the world. As they its predicate does not belong to the subject, his truth, or the fact that the predicate is related to the subject, depends on what happens in reality (a posteriori), not the meaning of terms. Therefore it is contingent propositions, since they are neither universal nor necessarily true and its negation is possible, as we said.
However, there can be no subsequent analytic judgments because their truth comes only a priori (or, in other words, analyzing the relationships between parts of a trial so we can determine its true). Since such trials reported a universal and necessary knowledge, based on the principle of identity, and therefore its negation is impossible. This implies that constitute analytic statements which are logical truths, or can be reduced to them. Such judgments refers only to relationships between concepts (and are therefore explanatory-type), and adds nothing to what the subject of the proposition and says or is.
Meanwhile, there remains a mystery to find, or not, synthetic statements that may be valid a priori . Kant argued that it was possible, and that was before us in branches such as arithmetic or geometry, as they were synthetic (ie, provide new knowledge) and valid a priori (by the light of reason alone), as well as pure physics. Kant thought that these three sciences exhausted the entire domain of human knowledge a priori (Pure Reason).
subsequent philosophical currents, such as logical empiricism (or positivism), always distinguished between analytic and synthetic a priori, a posteriori, as the fundamental framework of language, and rejected a priori synthetic judgments. However, Two Dogmas of Empiricism, Willard VO Quine criticized the distinction and labeled, in fact, the dogma of empiricism, since, According to him, there is no clear separation between the two types of trial, and also because the criteria for analytic propositions depend for their definition (and, therefore, to understand them) the concept of synonymy to be defined, but it in turn depends on that, so never went out of a circular definition.
Others have brought new arguments against this distinction, as the problem of defining something by its meaning, "that no distinction can be made the basis of notions such as 'concept' or 'statement', there some confusing statements that neither seem to be of one kind or another, among others.
The question is still open.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment