[hist-analytic] The "Analytic A Posteriori"
Baynesr at comcast.net
Baynesr at comcast.net
Tue Sep 1 16:33:35 EDT 2009
I remarked:
"Both follow from logic, alone, applied to propositions, which
are not propositions of logic, viz. ‘a=b’ and ‘The cat has two
heads or the cat does not have two heads’ , both of which
may be a posteriori. Schematically the
similarity can be represented thusly,
(…or ~…) /<p>
(nec …) /<p>"
i ought to have said:
Both follow from logic, alone, applied to propositions,
which are not propositions of logic, viz. ‘a=b’ and
‘The cat has two heads' . both of which may be a posteriori.
Schematically the similarity can be represented thusly,
(…or ~…) /<p>
(nec …) /<p>
Steve Bayne
----- Original Message -----
From: Baynesr at comcast.net
To: "hist-analytic" <hist-analytic at simplelists.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2009 2:35:58 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: The "Analytic A Posteriori"
Sometimes identities, when true, are described as
true ‘analytic a posteriori ’ propositions. This is not,
always an altogether easy determination. The sentence
‘a=b’ may be a posteriori and true, but even if we concede
the force of the Barcan principle and it follows that
‘necessarily (a=b)’ it does not follow from this that
‘necessarily (a=b)’ is a posteriori . That is, empirical
knowledge, knowledge that is possible "only…through
experience." (Kant First Critique B3). It is true that,
traditionally, the sole alternative to a posteriori is a priori ,
and that to be known a priori is to be known "absolutely
independently of all experience." (ibid) This would suggest
to some that ‘necessarily (a=b)’ cannot be a priori because
it is from the identity ‘a=b’ that we come to know ‘necessarily
(a=b)’ and, ‘a=b" can be known only through experience,
rendering ‘necessarily (a=b)’ a posteriori . But the proposition
‘necessarily (a=b)’ does not follow from anything but the
Barcan Principle applied to some proposition asserting identity.
We ought no more consider ‘necessarily (a=b)’ a posteriori than
we would consider ‘The cat has two heads or the cat does not
have two heads’ as a posterior i. Both follow from logic, alone,
applied to propositions, which are not propositions of logic, viz.
‘a=b’ and ‘The cat has two heads or the cat does not have two
heads’, both of which may be a posteriori. Schematically the
similarity can be represented thusly,
(…or ~…) /<p>
(nec …) /<p>
Where an I going with this? Short answer: Hume and Descartes
reason analogously from the independence in thought of certain
concepts; bodies and souls; causes and effects. Pursing that
analogy is productive; disposing of the analytic a posteriori is
essential to one aspect of what I have to say on these, separate,
but related lines of reasoning.
Steve Bayne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rbjones.com/pipermail/hist-analytic_rbjones.com/attachments/20090901/9cd03535/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the hist-analytic
mailing list