/lit/ - Literature

All redditors have internet access is an analytical truth. It makes analytical sense. The only way to get to reddit is by having an access to the internet.

All redditors are onions is a synthetic truth. Do all redditors need to be onions? No, but they still are.

t. wikipedia reader

kant is retarded and the analytic/synthetic distinction is nonsense. there are kantbots on this board and lots of pseuds who will say otherwise, and they are wrong. don't waste anymore time on kunt--read a more sober philosopher. (unironically start with the greeks and don't get sucked into the non-reality of modern philosophers)

>>22346156
>Kant is retarded or I got filtered.
I'm so sorry anon. Here is picrel for consolation. It was written for retards such as yourself and >>22346217

>>22346188
But that's completely arbitrary and you might just as well argue the opposite.

For example redditors having internet access is a posteriori because both redfit and then internet are empirically observed things. Empirical judgments are always synthetic.

Redditors being onions is analytic. Dissecting the a priori concept of a redditor shows that the word means cringe and onions. Hence being onions is analytically implied by being a redditor.

>>22346260
Can you justify why math is supposed to be synthetic?

>>22346343
add 173527253 to 2637283637? What's the sum? Also your not allowed to count.

>>22346348
>Also your not allowed to count.
Why not? How isn't counting an obvious example of analytic a priori? You are literally doing logical deduction on definitions. What else is analytic supposed to be?

>>22346352
>How isn't counting an obvious example of analytic a priori? You are literally doing logical deduction on definitions.
>logical deduction
ngmi

>>22346343
How many times do I have to teach you this lesson brainlets?

>>22346156
who the fuck even reads Kant lmao

>>22346353
So applying logic isn't analytic? What is analytic then?

>>22346362
/lit/ memed and shilled Kant, so I decided to give him a chance. So far I read that metaphysics is bullshit, but to be honest I already knew that.

Analytic judgements would be "All men are bachelors" the definition of bachelor means a "single man". You don't learn anything new from them. With that, they are always a priori meaning you know it without prior experience.
Synthetic judgements would be like 475827 plus 7748282. You do not have in your brain knowledge of that sum unless you add it yourself. They are usually a posteriori meaning you must have prior experience to know the answer. You learn new information by making the judgement.
There are also synthetic judgements a priori but you better get a handle of these first.

>>22346369
solving leetcode problems will give you more insight into reasoning than reading any number of vague philosophical texts shilled on a Rwandese copper mining board

>>22346387
I do not learn anything new by adding two numbers. The result is completely logically implied by the definition of addition without requiring any independent input. How is this not analytic?

>>22346217
>>22346188

Non-reality is Kant's one of many weak points.

Mr. Kant's “transcendental idealism“ is as “holy water“ - it does not exist, for it switches the focus of the modern “philosopher” from the study of perception towards that of the processes of the mind.

But such idealism is impossible since it dies in the when and how. Idealism in its core is the lack of how. Idealism by definition transcends time and space. It is always unique for it has no time to copy, no space to copy in.

You might want to check out https://pastebin.com/aHeF5cmy for further discussion points.

>>22346397
>I do not learn anything new by adding two numbers
Yes you do, you learn the sum of both the numbers which you wouldn't have known by simply reading both the numbers. You had to add them in your head.
>The result is completely logically implied by the definition of addition without requiring any independent input.
YOU have to add them together though, the answer might always be there but YOU don't know that from simply reading reading the equation of "858585 + 5747383" If it was analytic it would have to be basically redundant the same as "All bachelors are men".

>>22346156
>Either Kant is retarded or I got filtered.
gee, I wonder which one it will be

>>22346425
By that reasoning "all bachelors are unmarried" is synthetic as well. Nothing in the string of letters "b a c h e l o r" implies this. You have to discover the definition on your own and dissect the word to figure out its meaning. It seems you have made some implicit demarcation which level of "obvious news" of logical entailment from a definition qualifies as analytic/synthetic. This line might be completely different for others. What about 1+1=2? No computation is needed here. Analytic or synthetic?

>>22346434
Philosophers being low IQ is an analytic a priori.

>>22346260
>>22346348
>>22346353
>>22346356
Are you trolling at this point? I'm convinced you are trolling

>>22346434
Philosophy is a meme and lot of philosophers are demonstrably retarded by extension so chances are kant is retarded too

>>22346444
>Nothing in the string of letters "b a c h e l o r" implies this
Jesus Christ what a waste of trips. In the small, small chance you aren't trolling:

What is the definition of "800"? Nowhere in the definition of the number "800" is all the sums of 800 plus X. The definition of 800 is simply 800.
The definition of Bachelor is a MAN. They are tied together and can never be seperated.
Bachelor + Cat = lonely fucker
800 + 800 = 1600
Both are the same thing because nowhere in the defintion of any of the numbers or words is the answer to the equation.

>>22346156
> The analytic vs synthetic distinction doesn't make any sense to me.
Its like the difference between fission and fusion. One you can deduce something from something, the other you need to combine it with something in order to produce something of worth

>>22346477
You didn't answer the question. Is "1+1=2" analytic or synthetic?

>>22346500
Read my post retard

>>22346156
>The analytic vs synthetic distinction doesn't make any sense to me.
Good. At least you're not like the pseudo-kantians on /lit/ that don't get it either, yet still pretend to know Kant. Keep trying lad.

>>22346531
You didn't answer the question. In fact you did not address any criticism. At this point I must suspect you're intentionally dishonest.

>>22346156
Kant BTFO

https://courses.aynrand.org/works/the-analytic-synthetic-dichotomy/

>>22346425
Is this like how you wouldn’t intrinsically know just from pure thought beforehand that a certain reaction of hydrogen molecules with oxygen molecules would form water with its own unique properties? As in:

2 H2(g) + O2(g) 2 H2O(g)

Nothing from “just looking” at H2 or O2 would let you derive the product of their synthesis (water) beforehand without actually doing the synthesis.

I still find it a confusing and counterintuitive proposition at first that mathematics is comprised of synthetic judgments, but put this way it perhaps makes sense. I also barely know anything about Kant. The claim is that analogously, “just looking” at the numbers 7 and 5 doesn’t “give” you the number 12 and its own properties as a number without a synthetic judgment being carried out? Even if the addition is so apparently “simple,” quick, intuitive and seemingly self-evident as 1 + 1 being 2, this is still a process of “synthesis” being carried out in a micro-flash of time?

>>22346156
You need to know what a subject and predicate is first, at least roughly.

Subject = what a statement is about
Predicate = what is being said about the subject in the statement

When you say “my cat is an animal”, you are saying an analytic statement. That is because “being an animal” is part of the definition of the cat. You don’t need to independently verify it because saying “my cat is not an animal” would be a contradiction, it would be akin to saying “my animal is not an animal”.

When you say “my cat is on the table”, this is a synthetic statement. There is nothing part of the concept of cat that says anything about whether or not they are on tables. You cannot know this by definition, so you need to experience this to know it.

The key thing is that analytic means the predicate is already in the subject, synthetic means the predicate is not in the subject. There are some people who disagree like Quine, I think, and others who are specifically against Kant’s characterization of math as synthetic a priori (“new” knowledge prior to experience).

Don’t listen to people who pithily dismiss Kant, the Critique/Prolegomena is worth reading and understanding. There are some small things Kant gets wrong but the whole project is still valid, for example Einstein, who read Kant as a teenager and loved him, went on to challenge Newtonian space/time completely.

>>22346387
"All single men are bachelors" is a terrible example of analiticity, dunno why analytic philosophers keep using it. "Bachelor" and "single men" are not different concepts, they're just two expressions for the same concept. That sentence could be rewritten in the form "x is a name for y" (or even, if you substitute x, "y is y").
Analiticity requires a conceptual inclusion, so it needs to be either a tautology (x is x) or a subset (x is y, where x and y are different concepts, and y is required for the understanding of x). A good example of the second kind is "all bodies are extended", or "all numbers are quantities", since without the concepts of extension and quantity, "body" and "numbers" would be uninintelligible (they basically would be names tied to no concept at all).

I agree with your point about large sums. An easier way to explain it is that if sums were to be analytic, I would be able to IMMEDIATELY know their results just by knowing the meaning of the terms of the sum. Since in 656565+765432 I know what 656565, +, and 765432 mean, abd since I do not know what the result of the sum is, it is proved therefore that knowledge of the meaning of the terms of the sum is not sufficient to know its results. This means that said result must be derived synthetically, e.g. from calculation, counting and so on.

>>22346388
I can read and understand CPR but can’t do any hard problems on leetcode, is it over?

>>22346550
Different anon, 1+1=2 is synthetic

The absurdity of Kant's claim that math is synthetic becomes obvious when dealing with equivalent definitions. Let's look at a statement any math student encounters in his first year. "A topological space X is connected if its only clopen subsets are X and the empty set." Some mathematician will say this is clearly analytic. After all it's the heckin definition of what it means for a space to be connected. Now another mathematician will say "No, the definition of connected space is a space which cannot be represented as disjoint union of two non-empty open sets". Clearly for that second mathematician the first claim is not analytic but synthetic. It suddenly became a nontrivial statement requiring proof. Who is right then? Mathematically both definitions are easily shown to be equivalent. But according to Kant this must mean that the analyticity/syntheticicty of a statement is subjectively dependent on the individual.

>>22346626
>Different anon, 1+1=2 is synthetic
2 is defined as the successor of 1. The successor of a number n is defined as n+1. We only used definitions here. How can that be synthetic instead of analytic when it's literally the definition of 2?

>>22346626
>synthetic a priori
ftfy subtle but crucial

>>22346628
You have to keep in mind that this distinction only relates to transcendental logic (which takes into account knowledge), and not to formal logic (which does not take into account knowledge, and only refers to validity). This means that in mathematical definitions you have to take into account the way in which you have constructed the definitions you're trying to posit. Take >>22346636 for example. He says that 2 is defined as the successor of 1. In this definition he does not account for how the concept of "successor" is constructed and then applied to 1 and 2. If he did, he would discover that to get to 2 you have to perform a synthetic operation (the one of calculation), and would discover that "2 is the successor of 1" is not a definition, but a consequence of the synthetic operation you have to perform in order to obtain 2.
Not understanding that Kant is dealing with transcendental logic is imho the main issue behind misunderstandings of these sorts. Those who mistakenly believe that he deals with formal logic are simply incapable of reconstructing the order of knowledge that is implied by the assertions they make. This is why they cannot make a distinction between a synthetic definition and an analytic definition: so to speak, they're using readymade concepts, without knowing what said concepts presuppose.

>>22346618
No. take this and this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wysIxzqgPI
https://neetcode.io/roadmap
The hard problems usually combine multiple concepts, or you need to apply one concept in a non straightforward way. If you don't know the basic concepts, you will almost automatically fail.
CPR won't help you in anything because it is vague shit, with zero actual applications.

>>22346707
>CPR won't help you in anything because it is vague shit, with zero actual applications.
cope

>>22346156
> Either Kant is retarded or I got filtered
The latter is more likely.

>>22346701
Thanks for the effort. Does Kant explain the difference between "transcendental logic" and formal logic anywhere? I assume he wasn't familiar with the latter to the same extent as we are today, because formal logic in a mathematical sense was developed several decades after Kant. I'm currently reading Kant's Critique of pure reason and he jumps straight into the analytic vs synthetic distinction without presenting any prerequisites about transcendental logic. To be honest, I still don't get it. What exactly makes a definition in math synthetic or analytic?

>>22346707
Thank you anon, giving me hope of actually understanding DS&A

>>22346781
>To be honest, I still don't get it. What exactly makes a definition in math synthetic or analytic?
get off 4chan. read now.

>>22346781
>transcendental logic" and formal logic anywhere?
a huge chunk of the book us literally titled transcendental logic. at least put some minimim effort before you asked retarded questions.

>>22346817
>Yes Of course I know the difference. But instead of explaining it quickly, go find this obscure book by some random person where your answer may lie.
Jeez its like im back in med school

>>22346839
>instead of explaining it quickly
other anons have tried and failed. somethings just cannot be explained quickly hylicbrains. hence a short book rec to explain.

>>22346846
>tried and failed

I have seen multiple correct explanations. If he doesn’t understand he needs to sit down and write down what he thinks the nature of subject predicate relationships are in statements.

>>22346808
np. I doubt philosophy in general has actually helped anyone solve problems, but I'm absolutely sure Kant has never.
The advice he gives in the video is extremely solid. Just be sure to solve 1 - 2 new problems, and repeat what you already learned

>>22346901
>I'm absolutely sure Kant has never.
don't lie peanutbrain. you've never even read Kant.

>>22346831
Sorry, I just started reading the book. I'm still in the first chapter.

>>22346156
read two dogmas of empiricism and enjoy your "he's literally me" moment

>>22346701
Please tell me if I understood correctly. Analytic means I reach the conclusion instantaneously by making the statement. Synthetic means I have to think about it and justify why it's true. Is this right?

>>22346953
no. analytic means your just make explicit what was already implicit in the concept. synthetic means you add a new predicate to the concept that was not already implicit in the concept.

>>22346967
But 1+1=2 is implicit in the definition of 2. According to anon it's still synthetic for some reason I don't understand.

>>22346953
Wrong. >>22346967 is right
From the introduction to the prolegomena by Cambridge
"During his “silent decade” Kant had undertaken to evaluate the very
possibility of metaphysical cognition. This led him to investigate the
“origin” of that cognition in the faculties of the human mind. He came
to see metaphysical cognition, as well as the fundamental propositions
of mathematics and natural science, as having a peculiar, and hitherto
unrecognized, cognitive status, which he described as “synthetic a priori.”
Kant divided all judgments, and the propositions expressing those
judgments, into “analytic” and “synthetic.” He held that an analytic judgment
can be known to be true solely on the basis of the concepts used in
the judgment, because the predicate term is already “contained in” the
concept of the subject. Thus, the judgment “ontology is the science of
being” could be known to be true solely by reflection on the concept of
ontology, for this concept includes the meaning “science of being.” In
synthetic judgments, by contrast, the predicate term adds something new to the concept of the subject. “Metaphysics is in trouble” is a synthetic
judgment Kant would have accepted – but on any reasonable definition, “being in trouble” was not part of the very concept of metaphysics. Kant also divided propositions into a posteriori, i.e., “based on sensory experience,” and a priori, i.e., “known independently of sensory experience.” Neither of these divisions was wholly new with Kant; what was new was his suggestion that metaphysical cognition is characterized by synthetic a priori propositions, that is, by propositions in which a new predicate is conjoined to the subject term, and in which the basis for this connection is known a priori, independently of sensory experience."

>>22346985
But that doesn't answer the status of math with respect to the analytic/synthetic distinction.

>>22347059
"Like Descartes, Kant thought that metaphysics could
provide a systematic body of theoretical first principles, but he denied
that it provides knowledge of substances as they are in themselves. And
like Locke and Hume, he held that human speculative cognition must
be limited to the domain of human sensory experience, but he did not
agree that all knowledge comes from sensory experience – some knowledge
is based in the synthetic a priori propositions of mathematics, natural
science, and metaphysics. He justified such propositions in a novel manner,
by grounding them upon things he claimed could be known a priori
about the possibility of experience, such as the “forms of sensibility” that
condition all experience (pp. 34–6), or conditions on the possibility of
“judgments of experience” (pp. 49–53)."

" 2b.2. Mathematical judgments are synthetic a priori;
they rely on the construction of concepts in intuition, not on the mere analysis
of concepts."

"Space and time are the forms of sensory intuition, upon which the
propositions of geometry, arithmetic, and pure mechanics are based; they
make possible a priori cognitions of objects only as they appear to us (§10);
pure mathematics is therefore possible only because it relates merely to
objects of the senses, and then only to the form of sensibility, which provides
the basis for pure a priori intuition (§11). In geometry, proofs of the
equality of two figures depend on judgments of congruence, based upon
“immediate intuition”; if such intuition were empirical, it could not support
the apodictically certain propositions of geometry; Kant mentions
other geometrical proofs to show that they cannot be based on concepts
but require intuition. Hence pure mathematics is based on pure a priori
intuitions (§12)."

Math is synthetic since you need to combine different concepts to produce new ones. 1+1=2 is not implicit in the definition of 2 since 2 could be defined differently, like 0.7+1.3=2. 1+1=2 is synthesis of 1+1 which becomes 2 through their combination

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/ytqw4t/why_does_kant_consider_mathematics_or_geometry_to/

Why did reddit do a better job answering this than /lit/?

>>22347086
>since 2 could be defined differently
Then analytic vs synthetic is purely subjective then? Most mathematicians define 2 as the successor of 1. Kant didn't know Peano arithmetic but if you embrace this definition then 1+1=2 cannot be said to be synthetic anymore. Writing down a definition must be analytic.

>>22347115
>Then analytic vs synthetic is purely subjective then?
Im sorry but if you dont get it you dont get it. Philosophy isnt for everyone yknow

>>22347103
it's been answered on /lit/ very clearly hundreds of times. we just get tired of explaining basic concrpts to over and over to each wave of brainlets and newfags that show up. it's like whack a mole but it never stops. just look at this thread. multiple anons have tried to explain and philistine op still doesn't get it. it's all so tiring.

>>22347122
>>22347126
If you can't explain it to a newfag then you didn't understand it yourself.

This thread was disappointing. Let's see what the actual experts have to say.

>>>/sci/15639042

>>22347148
i already have too many times newfag. check the archives. I'm just tired of explaining the same basic shit over and over again for free.

>>22347148
>if you cant teach a paraplegic to run a marathon then you cant do it yourself!
Wow so true :^)

>>22347157
Show me in the archive where you explained it, please.

>>22346217
But if Kant and Kantians are such a problem, isn't there value in reading his works to know with what you're contending with and what the actual complications his philosophy gave birth to are?

>>22346950
just read it. lol and you faggots call Kant an autist. Quine is worse than an autist, he's a pedant.

>>22346156
You need to understand classical philosophical logic to understand Kant's notion of the distinction. The type that deals with "judgements" of a subject-predicate form, categories, and concepts. Roughly, concepts were treated as objective entities that are to be distinguished from subjective psychological conceptions (what you may think of upon hearing the word "concept"). They "contain" properties such that to conceive of the concept you conceive of it with these properties or fail to conceive of it at all. For the distinction itself, I explained it here:
>>22347348

>>22347401
Can you be more specific about how one would show mathematics is synthetic today?

>>22347466
The issue is too complicated for me to offer a direct argument. I can give indications. To speak loosely, if we take Godel's distinction between objective and subjective mathematics, where the former consists of the objectively true mathematical statements and the latter consists of mathematical statements that we can *recognize* (not necessarily prove) as true, then we get a famous disjunction in light of Godel's incompleteness theorems. In Godel's words,
> either the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) infinitely surpasses the power of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems.
We should frame our problem in terms of these two possibilities.
Suppose all of the mathematical statements we can recognize as true are provable in some formal system. Then it is possible that this formal system is analytic.
On the other hand, suppose there are mathematical statements we can recognize as true that "outpace" any formal system. Then mathematics is synthetic, since (if we take Frege's notion of analyticity in pic related) any "proof" (justification is a better word) of a statement that outpaces any formal system will have a step in the reasoning that does not depend on any general logical law. It would be, say, provided by the human mind (intuition, in Kant's words). If there was no such step, the truth could (potentially) be proved in a formal system, contrary to hypothesis.
We have a priori no idea which of these possibilities is true. This makes the issue extremely difficult to tackle.

>>22347677
Of course, I forgot to attach the image.

Synthetic is a truth both in the sense of what it means and conforms to the way the world works, analytic is a truth just in what it means. Some philosophical schools do not recognize analytic truths as existing. Synthetic truths include things like pure mathematics and saying something like the ripe apple is red since red can be verified a priori and by definition.

>>22346156
Both conditions can be true simultaneously

>>22346781
Yes, he explains it at the beginning of the Transcendental Analytic, in the Critique of Pure Reason.
>>22346953
Kinda. The fact that you reach the conclusion instantaneously is a consequence of analiticity, rather than its defining trait. An analytic judgement is a judgement in which the predicate is immediately contained in the subject. So, the defining trait of analiticity is conceptual inclusion. For example, "all bodies are extended" (the example used by Kant), "extension" is immediately contained in "body", since it is an essential property of it (in other terms, "body" would be inconceivable if you were not thinking it as extended, since extension is, so to speak, one of those properties that defines its essence). A similar argument can be made for "all numbers are quantities" (this example is not present in Kant): after all, if you don't think a number as quantity, what the hell are you thinking? It would be just a name, a flatus vocis.
Of course, as you've noticed, if the conceptual inclusion is present, then you will immediately grasp the meaning of the judgement, since to think the subject you must already have a notion of the predicate. This is why Kant says that analytic judgements are not explanatory, but only ampliative: they're useful insofar as they help clarifying concepts you already know, and they add no new knowledge.
>>22347059
It does. Check my other post>>22346613 for a clearer explanation.

>>22346444
I think you misunderstand the entire crux of the distinction. The point isn’t whether the connection between concepts is “obvious.” The point is that, one simply cannot use the term bachelor and understand what they are doing without also knowing that unmarried men are bachelors, whereas one can conceivably use the number 1 conceptually without knowing that 1+1=2, or that 1+1+1+1=4 and so on ad Infinitum. Even though the synthetic connection in 1+1=2 is obvious, in order to understand what 1 is, you don’t have to also understand what 2 is or 3 or 4 or 8000 or any of the possible sums of 1. These would all be arbitrary correlations.

>>22347870
You're obviously right. I just want to pass an advice: do not focus on the bachelor example. I've explained here >>22346613 why it just leads to confusion. Imho "bodies are extended" and "numbers and quantities" are better example, since here the predicate and the subject are two different actual concepts (while "bachelor" is just the name of a concept, meaning that "bachelors are unmarried man" basically means "x is the name for y", which obviously does not entail any conceptual inclusion). I've found out that by avoiding this example I've managed to make many clueless people understand the analytic/synthetic distinction.

>>22346387
All men are bachelors is new to me. I thought some men were married!

>>22347152
/sci/ is even more retarded than /lit/

>>22347919
>I've managed to make many clueless people understand the analytic/synthetic distinction.
if only you could've made Quine understand

>>22347951
>Verb

>quine (third-person singular simple present quines, present participle quining, simple past and past participle quined)

>(philosophy) To deny the existence or significance of something obviously real or important.

lol

>>22347951
>Noun

>pedant (plural pedants)

>A person who makes an excessive or tedious show of their knowledge, especially regarding rules of vocabulary and grammar.

literally analytics. even more lol.

>>22346156
Kant only makes sense to neurotic sperglords. The rigid structure appeals to their bot-like brains.

>>22346156
But anon-kun he literally gives an examples. What is there not to get?

this whole discussion of the analytic vs. synthetic distinction being about "can you recognize blah blah blah immediately" is so fucking dumb

if I didn't know that bachelors are single men, then that statement would be new to me, and I would have learned something. idk if I'd call it calculation, but there's some learnin' cognitive gears ticking there.

if I was an autist who memorized every possible sum of two integers from 1 through 1 billion, then none of the statements in this thread would have been new to me, making them not synthetic. and I guess that would make them analytic by principle of non contradiction, though it's also nice to point out that you can define sums the way that other anon did earlier in the thread too, oftentimes in terms we already know well.

this whole "predicate in the subject" thing is also dumb because it is predicated (kek) on what you already know about the subject. if you didn't know that humans are animals, like that was the first time you heard of an animal or made a connection between animals and humans, then that would be a predicate not contained in the subject.

how can you have all this shit and make it EPISTEMIC? no wonder Quine had a field day with this stupid distinction.

>>22347995
filtered much?

>>22348005
nta but explainen please?

>>22348005
I'm not filtered. I just get it, and realize it's stupid. You wouldn't understand it though because this is a synthetic truth for you. It's analytic for me.

>>22348007
>nta but explainen please?
Explain why his casuistry is wrong? Think for yourself
>>22348016
>I'm not filtered. I just get it, and realize it's stupid. You wouldn't understand it though because this is a synthetic truth for you. It's analytic for me.
Sure I believe you bud :^)

>>22348025
Au contraire, anon, it seems like my post filtered you. I know it.

>>22348043
Normally I would never concede from such an insurmountable winning position but your application of the french language have demonstrated your superior intelligence. I beg your forgiveness for my arrogant display

>>22348007
Please ignore my previous message and my reply, for it was made too hastily

>>22347995
>Necessity and strict universality, therefore, are infallible tests for distinguishing pure from empirical knowledge, and are inseparably connected with each other.

>Judgments of experience, as such, are always synthetical. For it would be absurd to think of grounding an analytical judgment on experience, because in forming such a judgment I need not go out of the sphere of my conceptions, and therefore recourse to the testimony of experience is quite unnecessary.

>>22347995
If you don’t know that humans are animals, then you don’t understand the concept of a human.

>>22348056
I humbly accept your apology. It happens to the best of us.

>>22348057
I don't think language is a great example of "pure" knowledge because of its intersubjective, arbitrary, and functional nature. I'm not denying that the analytic/synthetic distinction exists, but rather we have a really bad understanding of how it can be said to exist.
>>22348073
Or... maybe it's a new element of humanity that I hypothetically never considered? Humans are very different from animals. There's no animal quite like us.

>>22348098
>Humans are very different from animals. There's no animal quite like us.
kek

>The orang-outang of Borneo is little, if any, inferior to the savage man in intelligence. Mr. Wallace and other great naturalists give instances of its wonderful acuteness, although its brains are inferior in cubic capacity to the most undeveloped of savages. These apes lack but speech to be men of low grade. The sentinels placed by monkeys; the sleeping chambers selected and built by orang-outangs; their prevision of danger and calculations, which show more than instinct; their choice of leaders whom they obey; and the exercise of many of their faculties, certainly entitle them to a place at least on a level with many a flat-headed Australian. Says Mr. Wallace, “The mental requirements of savages, and the faculties actually exercised by them, are very little above those of the animals.”

>>22347870
>whereas one can conceivably use the number 1 conceptually without knowing that 1+1=2,
But you cannot conceivably use the number 2 without knowing it's 1+1.

>>22347919
>Imho "bodies are extended" and "numbers and quantities" are better example
"Bodies are extended" is just as stupid and arbitrary and I'd say wrong. That's an obvious a posteriori. Kant never justifies why spatial extension should be more fundamental than mass. Spoiler: It isn't. All he does is a shitty appeal to intuition. In fact nothing about space is a priori.

>(while "bachelor" is just the name of a concept, meaning that "bachelors are unmarried man" basically means "x is the name for y", which obviously does not entail any conceptual inclusion).
2 is just a nams for 1+1. I hate to repeat myself, but this is literally how the symbol 2 is defined in a perfect analytic a priori fashion.

>I've found out that by avoiding this example I've managed to make many clueless people understand the analytic/synthetic distinction.
That's quite narcisstic of you and factually wrong.

>>22348831
>Kant never justifies why spatial extension should be more fundamental than mass.
tell me more about how you skimmed through the first critique just to say you 'read' it.

>>22348831
>Bodies are extended" is just as stupid and arbitrary and I'd say wrong. That's an obvious a posteriori. Kant never justifies why spatial extension should be more fundamental than mass. Spoiler: It isn't. All he does is a shitty appeal to intuition.
Could you please tell me what an unsxtended body is? Do you have any representation of it, or are you just stringing words together?
>In fact nothing about space is a priori.
Ponder on the difference between "pure" and "a priori". A priori knowledge is not necessarily pure.
>2 is just a nams for 1+1.
This is easily refutable, above already done in previous posts, where I've shown that a sum does not analytically entail its result. If you want to disagree, engage with my refutation.

>>22348930
>Could you please tell me what an unsxtended body is? Do you have any representation of it, or are you just stringing words together?
Could you please tell me what water looks like when it isn't H2O? An a posteriori truth is still a truth, it's just not a priori.

>2 is just a nams for 1+1.
>This is easily refutable
You cannot refute a definition.

>>22348976
nta but you are ngmi

>>22348150
Based Blavatskyposter

>>22349038
>guy who literally doesn't know 1+1 is telling dude who knows it that he's ngmi
Lmao, delusional

>>22349044
you seethe because it's all you can do at this point, along with cope of course.

>>22346156
>Either Kant is retarded or I got filtered.
anon, on behalf of this whole thread, why is it so hard for you to accept you got filtered?

>>22349052
>>22349069
>projecting
My arguments remain unrefuted.

Serious question. In the Kantian sense, is "transwomen are women" analytic or synthetic?

>>22349112
neither because trannies aren't women

>>22348150
I've never seen an orangutan build a house. Even profoundly unsophisticated people are capable of doing that. The dumbest retards are still smarter than the smartest ape.

>>22347995
/thread
>>22349112
another great example of how the distinction is bullshit and based on subjective factors lol

>>22349141
>I've never seen an orangutan build a house
>t. never directly observed orangutan behavior in their natural environment
ngmi

>>22349145
are you telling me that orangutans build houses? that's crazy dawg

>>22348976
>Could you please tell me what water looks like when it isn't H2O?
It doesn't matter, since I can have a concept and a representation of water without knowing anything about hydrogen and oxigen atoms. My question is: what representation of body do you have when you don't attribuite extension to it? What are you actually thinking then?
>An a posteriori truth is still a truth, it's just not a priori
A posteriori truth can be a priori.
>You cannot refute a definition
You can, by showing that rather than definitions they're a conclusion of a synthetic judgement (as it is in the case of water as H2O). You're adopting a readymade view of definitions, which makes no sense in transcendental logic.

>>22346156
Hegel already BTFO'd Kant and proved that synthetic and analytical judgments taken simultaneously are necessary for non-discursive cognition in the SOL.

>>22349852
True, but if people have not risen themselves at the level of Kant they have no hope of reaching the Hegelian standpoint. Give them time, they're not ready yet for dialectical thought, let them get a hang on reflection first

>>22347677
This poster deserves credit for being the only person to actually understand and address OP's objection. All the other philosocucks in this thread don't know anything about math and should shut up and go home.

>>22349947
Multiple people have already commented on pure mathematics being Synthetic, which is true. Trolls or dipshits saying otherwise has prolonged this thread significantly longer than it should have been around though. OP got filtered.

>>22349974
People can make statements they believe to be true without addressing the actual objection, thus revealing that they didn't get the objection to begin with. You sound like you would be filtered by Cal I.

>>22346425
>the equation of "858585 + 5747383"
but that's not an equation. that can't possibly be a judgement in the same way "All men are bachelors." is because it doesn't have a truth value. "858585 + 5747383" is an incomplete sentence. an appropriate analogy would have been:
>"858585 + 5747383 equals 6605968."
which is clearly analytic.

>>22346387
>"All men are bachelors"
lmfao this is your brain on Kant

>>22349852
SOL's best point re Kant is that Kant is actually extremely dogmatic. He makes a critical turn against prior metaphysics, and argues that we do not know things as they are. Ok, fair enough. But then where does he go next?

>Thought must be about objects. This is the entire lynchpin on which the noumena hangs and it is supported by nothing except the pure dogmatism of "though is awareness of objects because that's what thought is."

Note that what makes this especially bad for people who mindlessly cite Kant in our present era is that process has replaced substance/objects throughout the our understanding of the world. We now think of fire and heat as processes, not substances, there is no caloric heat substance. "Fundemental," particles have beginnings and ends. We can watch them spontaneously pop into existence in particle accelerators or in the void as virtual particles and we know that even stabilities like atoms are actually processes that will decay. No more vital fluid for defining life,.it's a far from thermodynamic equilibrium dynamical system, etc. So we have come full circle and Heraclitus triumphs over Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle.

Kant has no grounds for his dogmatism.

Second, he derived Aristotle's exact categories of logic off an extremely weak jump from judgement which is also barely disguised dogmatism.

Hegel points both these out. He doesn't need to explain why the noumena makes no sense, other have anyhow, he just shows how Kant fucked up his own project.

The problem with Hegel is that almost no one has followed him on presuppositionless philosophy because it is too hard.

>>22346156
All communication is reducible to information, ones or zeros or quantum information representing the space between one and zero.

All computation can be reduced to this binary.

There is no analyticity because different strings require different encodings.

Information is a process. We never think the same thought twice just as we never live the same moment twice.

There is no true distinction. Any analyticity for any system must be based on past correlations.

There is no timeless Platonic realm where math and logic happen sans conscious.

There is only becoming, being passing into non-being, process.

Analyticity cannot exist when all is flux and the equality of all encodings of any message is necessarily contextual and relational.

>>22350021
> "858585 + 5747383" is an incomplete sentence.
Not that anon but yes, in that example that sum is the subject of the judgement, not a judgement on its own
>"858585 + 5747383 equals 6605968."
which is clearly analytic.
It is clearly synthetic, otherwise I would immediately know the result of the sum (which here it's the predicate) just by knowing the meaning of the terms contained in the subject. Since I know what 858585, 5747383 and "+" mean, and since I still don't know that their result is, it follows that the judgement (which includes both the sum and the result) is synthetic, and to be reached it is required to perform additional mental operations (since the mere recognition of the meanings of the terms contained in the subject are not sufficient). Notice that this can be extended to any sum, it just becomes more obvious when it comes to large sums, since it is less likely that uou have memorized their results (as it could happen in 7+5=12)
>>22349947
You actually don't need to know anything above basic arithmetics to deal with these questions.

>>22347928
norm?

>>22350020
Absolutely right, and by the logic you just used it sounds like my previous post straight filtered you. Is this why you are posting on a literature board? Did Calc 1 filter you good little buddy?

>>22349974
>pure mathematics being Synthetic, which is true.
Filtered

>>22350574
>Mathematics is analytic
Wew, I guess these theorems are teaching us nothing new then
Tbh I think people here are seething because for some reason they believe that saying that maths is synthetic is akin to calling it a posteriori

>>22350605
Theorems merely express what is already contained in the definitions involved.

Summary of the thread so far:

>reasonable and educated posters agree that anatlyic vs synthetic is highly questionable and math clearly isn't synthetic
>pseud larpers mindlessly repeat wikipedia copypasta unable to answer the criticism, start spamming ad hominems when disproved
And this is why philosophy is dead.

>>22350617
Then I guess we don't need theorems, we just need to look at the definitions and we will immediately know all that can be derived from them. How convenient!

>>22350704
To a high IQ person most theorems are indeed obvious. I'm sorry to hear that you operate at a level where even 1+1=2 becomes subjectively nontrivial.

>>22350670
>math clearly isn't synthetic
Why can't it be both analytic and synthetic? No one is saying mathematics are purely synthetic.

>>22350722
>Why can't it be both analytic and synthetic?
It can be (under the questionable assumption that analytic/synthetic is a meaningful terminology to begin with).

>No one is saying mathematics are purely synthetic.
Quite a few retards ITT are vehemently expressing this claim.

Is the Uniformitarian Principle synthetic or analytic?

>>22350605
>>22350704
Look how the dishonest rabulist shifts the goalposts. Suddenly he claims that analyticity is not about properties being contained in a concept anymore. Suddenly it's allegedly about how "obvious" a conclusion is (to whom? dependent on intelligence and educational background?) or whether you "learn something new" (again highly subjective).

>>22350732
>It can be (under the questionable assumption that analytic/synthetic is a meaningful terminology to begin with).
Kant only says that mathematics are a means to produce synthetic a priori judgements. The synthetic/analytic division goes beyond just maths.

>Quite a few retards ITT are vehemently expressing this claim.
Just ignore them.

>>22350712
It's not that most theorems are obvious: all of them are. That's why there is no need for theorems. Again, how convenient!
>>22350742
Of course it is, since if the concept is intelligible to you, then you already know its essential determinations. That's why analytic judgements are not explanatory.
>>22350722
Kant does.

>>22350776
>Kant does.
Wrong, he only says you CAN use maths to make synthetic a priori judgements, but it doesn't exclude you can also make analytic judgements with it.

>>22350792
Considering that he derives all the fundamental concepts of maths from his transcendental schematism, I cannot think of a single instance of genuine analytic mathematical judgement

Kant was basically the 18th century equivalent of a typical LessWrong poster. Decently clever, but under-educated and almost willfully choosing to ignore established terminology in favor of inventing his own words. He has a few novel and quite clever ideas but they're so buried under mountains of his own private definitions that they may as well have been written in code.
Also sometimes he just blatantly contradicts himself because he has established as his baseline axiom that idealism must be true, regardless of what the actual process of his thoughts leads him to.

>>22350823
You seem to have no knowledge of math at all.

>>22350776
>shifting the goalposts again
Like cockwork.

>>22350603
Kant specifically states that geometers acquire concepts via synthesis and philosophers via analysis. Did you even read Kant? You can't be filtered if you didn't read the book but please stop pretending you know anything and go back to chud posting elsewhere.

>>22350837
Mention one mathematical analytic judgement.
>>22350841
Bitch you got filtered by the goddamn introduction of the first critique if you think that analytic judgements are explanatory lmao

>>22350823
>I cannot think of a single instance of genuine analytic mathematical judgement
Bro you can't think at all.

>>22350857
Still waiting for you to mention a single mathematical analytic judgement. It cannot be that hard, right?

>>22350868
Please stop trying to prove your understanding by engaging with blatant sophists. It makes you come across as a retard :/

>>22350868
Definition of the imaginary unit. I think you're either disingenuine or inept at mathematics.

>>22350881
Can you define an imaginary unit without mathematical operations (e.g. multiplication, exponentiation)?
>>22350868
Eh, I have already given serious conclusive answers, now let me have some fun with these retards

>>22346352
there would be no definition if there were no reality

>>22350892
The second part was meant as a response to >>22350880

>>22350892
>Can you define an imaginary unit without mathematical operations (e.g. multiplication, exponentiation)?
What would that prove?

>>22350892
"The square of the imaginary unit is equal to -1" is an analytic proposition, by Kant's definition, because the predicate concept is contained in its subject concept. Or in other words, i is defined as the number who's square is -1. Same as "a triangle has three sides", if you want to skip to something a little more basic.

>>22350848
>Mention one mathematical analytic judgement.
1+1=2
>Bitch you got filtered by the goddamn introduction of the first critique if you think that analytic judgements are explanatory lmao
Nobody said this. Strawtransperson fallacy.

>>22350868
Every mathematical statement is analytic. Math consists of definitions (analytic) and the analytic dissection of said definitions (theorems + their proofs).

>>22350892
>define the imaginary unit without operations
Imaginary unit is the second axis in the complex plane

>>22350917
That it is not an analytic judgement. Jesus christ just read the critique of pure reason, it's obvious that you're the one who has no idea about the matter at hand
>>22350928
> i is defined as the number who's square is -1.
If you're treating i as a name, then this judgement is in the form of "y is the name of x", meaning that it is not a mathematical judgement (rather this judgement would only depict a naming procedure, which has no conceptual relevance whatsoever). If by i you mean the concept associated to i (e.g. the imaginary quantity), then that is a synthetic judgement, since it is the result of an operation.
>Same as "a triangle has three sides", if you want to skip to something a little more basic.
Sama as above. If "triangle" is a name then you're merely describing a naming procedure of no conceptual relevance. If "triangle" is a concept, then that is clearly a synthetic judgement, which is derived from a synthetic construction of a figure in the pure form of space.
>>22350934
Read the introduction again, it won't kill you

>>22350947
i is most definetely not the second axis in the complex plane

>>22350967
>anon: "the author is wrong and here is a logical refutation"
>you: "noooo, he can't be wrong, he's an authority, how dare you question what he said???"
You are too intellectually immature for philosophy.

>>22350967
>If you're treating i as a name
>If "triangle" is a name
NTA but holy shit you're dumb. I shudder at the idea of people like you in positions of power.

>>22350967
Ignoring for a moment that "all triangles have three sides" is literally baby's first example of a Kantian analytic judgement, Kant's own example was "all bodies occupy space". "Bodies" is clearly either a concept or a name there, same as "triangle". Therefore, either It's a name and all of this is Kant's nonsense wankery (wouldn't be the first time), or it's a concept and having a concept be subject does not preclude a statement from being an analytic judgement.

>>22350981
Haha yeah

>>22350967
>rather this judgment would only depict a naming procedure, which has no conceptual relevance whatsoever
"A bachelor is an unmarried man". Kant's own example is merely a naming procedure. Just admit you never read him.

>>22350987
I gave you an answer for both the case in which you treat it as a name and the case in which you treat it as a concept. I guess it was too hard for you to read more than one sentence.
>>22350992
Are bodies space? In "all bodies are extended" you have two different concepts, and one is not reduced to the other (since bodies are not mere extension). If bodies is treated as a name then anything goes, and no conceptual relevance is reached (since naming procedures have only an instrumental value insofar as they make comunication possible); if instead body are meant as concepts (e.g. matter that occupies space, and therefore are extended), then the subsumption under extension is not a mere procedure, and it is directly implied by the intellgibility of body (since without extension you would not have any representation of it, leaving you with a mere name not associated to any concept), and is therefore analytic.
> or it's a concept and having a concept be subject does not preclude a statement from being an analytic judgement.
I havent said anything of the sort. Syntheticity in the case of mathematical and geometrical concepts is derived through construction, hence my questions concerning operations. If your pseudo-definition is a result of a construction (in the kantian sense), then it is not a definition, rather it is the result of an operation, and as such the judgement is synthetic. In this sense "i is the square root of -1" is an improper presentation of the judgement "the square root of -1 is i", which is a synthetic judgement, as all operations are.

>>22350830
>undereducated
Dude was a tenured professor who taught Aristotelian logic and mathematics kek

>>22350847
>Kant said
He was wrong bro

>>22351011
Quite the confident retard isn't he?

So has anyone here read Putnam’s essay on this?
I started but I’ve now opened a beer which will lead to more and I don’t take kindly to philosophy while on the drink.
Also the copy online is shit.

>>22351024
Kant doesn't use this example, he uses "all bodies are extended" iirc.
Regardless, it still has no conceptual relevance, since it does not elucidate a concept, but it tells you only about the name I have decided to use to denote that concept (and this tells me nothing about the concept itself, which is indeed independent from this naming procedure, to the point where you can assign whatever name you want to it). On the other hand there are analytic judgements of conceptual relevance, e.g. "all numbers are quantities", in which an actual determination of the subject is elucidated through the predicate.

>>22351046
Kant didn't know shit about math.

>>22351085
If numbers is not just a name for quantities then "all numbers are quantities" must be synthetic.

>>22351011
>>22351058
I mean, Im objectively right on this one, i is only one of the possible values of the imaginary axis. That's like saying "1 is the real axis of the complex plane". But im the overconfident one here.

>>22351085
>all numbers are quantities
I’ll have 36.5-22i apples, please.

>>22351093
It is not, insofar as quantity is an essential determination of the subject. If "quantity" is unintelligible to you, then so is "number", which would mean that you're not actually meaning anything by it. And since quantity is already contained as an essential determination of numbers, then the judgement is not explanatory, and therefore it is analytic.

>>22351098
I was wrong and the other anon dog piled on
My curt response was a bit insulting, I’ll admit

>>22351107
>explanatory
Shifting le goalposts again ...

>>22350847
"Kant disproves Kant" was a running joke in the philosophy department at my alma matter.

>>22351046
Having known many tenured professors I stand by my statement. Having a family member who is a tenured professor, I double down on it even.

>>22351104
Damn, I wonder how you might be able to distinguish between 2i and 3i if they're not quantities then

>>22351107
"Bachelors are unmarried men" is explanatory, therefore according to you not analytic.

>>22351110
Again, read the introduction of the first critique. Im not shitfting any goalpost, these are literally the basic properties associated to synthetic and analytic judgements. Kant talks about it in the first 20 pages of the first critique but apparently I am just making shit up

>>22351114
Quantities of what

>>22351120
Here we go:
>Entweder das Prädikat B gehört zum Subjekt A als etwas, was in diesem Begriffe A (versteckterweise) enthalten ist; oder B liegt ganz außer dem Begriff A, ob es zwar mit demselben in Verknüpfung steht. Im ersten Fall nenne ich das Urteil analytisch, in dem andern synthetisch.
See? He doesn't mention "explanatory" anywhere. You're making up nonsense he never wrote.

>>22351129
>By this [he is talking here about analytic concepts] means we gain a multitude of cognitions, which although really nothing more than elucidations or clarifications of that which (though in a confused manner) was already thought in our conceptions, are, at least in respect of their form, prized as new introspections; whilst, so far as regards their matter or content, we have really made no addition to our conceptions, but only disinvolved them.
By explanatory I meant the act of adding something to a given concept/representation. If all the judgement does is picking out a determination that is already included in the intelligibility of the concept at hand, then nothing else is added to it, and the concept has not been expanded (maybe you prefer "expansion" as a term, if you do i will use this one, I was using it informally anyway).

>>22351117
Nothing is added to neither the subject nor the predicate, if "bachelor" is the name that denotes the concept of "unmarried man". Before you know what bachelor means, that's not a name to you, but a string of letters.

ah I see retards still dont understand why 2 + 5 = 7 is synthetic after people explain it to them everyday
these kant threads are so fucking annoying

>>22351164
Yeah, those heckin retarderinos still don't understand a false statement. Damn, they must be so stupid still to insist in truth even though our old white authority philosopher baselessly made that claim.

>>22351164
It's a good way to learn that you can't force people to understand Kant. Their ignorance cannot be your fault.

>>22351193
>Their mental retardation cannot be your fault.
ftfy

>>22351227
Yes, these retards aren't people.

>>22346156
Dude forget that fucking nonsense and stop wasting your time with bullshit philosophy, just get into math if you actually want to acquire any significant insight instead of jerking off.

>>22351256
Are you sure you aren't the one who's retarded? The analytic-synthetic rejectors are making good, nuanced arguments...

>>22353251
Show me one argument in this thread that has not been refuted

>>22353315
There’s like at least a half dozen anti a-s distinction posts that never got anybody to respond after they dropped their gotcha bomb lol. It makes you Kant simps look like clowns, jerking off each other to a fake victory

Kant bros? It's not looking good for us ...

>>22353716
Show me one then.

>>22354277
here's a bunch that either got crickets or got shitty counterarguments
>>22346636
>>22346628
>>22347115
>>22347677
>>22347995
>>22349143
>>22350066

also Peirce (pbuh) debunked the analytic-synthetic distinction too. seems like everybody who understands predication (and its relativity) at a deeper level does. who would have thought!

>>22354720
Almost everyone of these has got either a direct refutation, and most of the ones that didnt were just copies of the ones that got a refutation. The only ones that didnt get a direct response was the Godel one (which got an indirect response insofar as many people pointed out that this distinction does not pertain to formal logic, and therefore any talk of formal systems is out of place) and the Hegel one (which is correct, but adopts a system of thought, the dialectical one, that is not accepted by pretty much everyone in this thread).
>also Peirce (pbuh) debunked the analytic-synthetic distinction too. seems like everybody who understands predication (and its relativity) at a deeper level does. who would have thought!
The issue is that no one of you dimwits understand the difference between formal and transcendental logic, which makes you unable to even reconstruct Kant's basic argument

>>22354849
>formal and transcendental logic,
well, what is it anon?

>>22350112
>It is clearly synthetic, otherwise I would immediately know the result of the sum (which here it's the predicate) just by knowing the meaning of the terms contained in the subject.
This argument hinges on this vague concept of immediateness. I can construct a natural language statement which has the same truth value as "all bachelors are unmarried", and can be derived from the same facts, and yet that is formed by a number of terms large enough that at a glance you could not understand whether the sentence is true or not.
In general, numbers are often defined as sums of 1, ie 3 = 1+1+1 and so on. This definition essentially reduces a statement like x + y = z to the same statement as t = s, where all of those are natural numbers. There is no qualitative difference.
In particular, if determining a sum is a synthetic proposition, then so has to be equality in general.
>(since the mere recognition of the meanings of the terms contained in the subject are not sufficient)
What does that mean? "Mere recognition" seems like an even more vague statement. Is 2=2 something that can be determined by mere recognition? But as I've demonstrated, it's according to the previous statement a synthetic proposition.
>>22347677
>Suppose all of the mathematical statements we can recognize as true are provable in some formal system
This is trivially true. Let L be an axiomatic language such that every statement that is recognized as true is an axiom. This lets us get away with a countable set of axioms, and the proof of every such statement is simple.
The only potential problem here is that because the concept of subjective mathematics as described by Gödel is very wishy-washy, you could argue that there is no decidable procedure to determine whether a statement is an axiom in such a system. But actually, all we really need is a language where all wfs are theorems, such as an inconsistent first order theory. (You can argue that you also need sufficient expressive power to express all the subjectively true statements, which in fact can be done because we simply need to take the original language in which they were expressed and extend it with more axioms).
>On the other hand, suppose there are mathematical statements we can recognize as true that "outpace" any formal system.
It's hard to imagine such a statement. In particular, any statement is true, false and unprovable in some possible formal language.
>any "proof" (justification is a better word) of a statement that outpaces any formal system will have a step in the reasoning that does not depend on any general logical law
This is a weird, almost mystical statement. In particular, the rules of inference of some formal language are not general but rather arbitrary. If such a statement were to exist, you could simply construct a formal language such that the justification is a valid proof in the language.
t. /sci/ tourist, I don't know shit about Kant

>>22355276
>t. /sci/ tourist, I don't know shit about Kant
then why even post retard?

>>22346419
>it transcends time and space
nice b8

>>22355283
I was curious about what anons have to say about this topic and saw some arguments that didn't quite make sense from a logical point of view.

>>22355340
>I dont understand their arguments since they are made with underlying concepts I am unaware of, so im going to try to prove them wrong using formal logic!
Next time please dont interrupt when the cool kids are dunking on the retards. Or you will be next :()X<

>>22355382
If my argument comes from a place of misunderstanding, then there should be an easy statement clarifying the proposition in light of my reply. Well?

>>22355388
idc about trying to teach a colorblind person colors but if you are interested here is a hint you: Start with the greeks

>>22355388
>then there should be an easy statement clarifying the proposition in light of my reply.
>easy
there is no easy road to Kant and I'm not going to go full guenonfag to explain. if you really want to know you'll look into it yourself. here's a bone.

>>22355063
Check the beginning of the analytic section of the first critique, in which Kant makes a distinction between all the types of logic he knows of.

>>22355276
>>22355276
>This argument hinges on this vague concept of immediateness
It is not vague imho, it is a direct consequence of conceptual inclusion.
> I can construct a natural language statement which has the same truth value as "all bachelors are unmarried", and can be derived from the same facts, and yet that is formed by a number of terms large enough that at a glance you could not understand whether the sentence is true or not.
As a favour, Ill ask you from now on to refrain from using the bachelor example. Without a paraphrase its meaning is too vague, since it could just be a naming procedure (and in that case "bachelor" is not a concept), or it could be simply a mistake (since "bachelor" here is in fact nothing more than a name, and not a concept at all). If you want to use it, then give an explicit paraphrase of what you think bachelor means here, wether it is a name or a concept, and if it is a concept then explain in which way it differs from the concept of "unmarried man".
Anyway, to respond to your question, the inability to understand the sentence would just be a lack of familiarity with regards to the terms of the proposition, rather than genuine conceptual confusion. This means that you're simply not familiar with the names that are being used, rather than their actual conceptual content. In general I think that for Kant conceptual content is independent from its linguistic form (although I am not sure wether Kant ever talked about it), meaning that failure to understand the former is different from the failure to understand the latter. Not knowing that Umsicht can mean prudence does not mean that I do not have a concept of prudence, it just means that I do not know that that name refers to said concept. Of course there can be concepts of linguistic use, but even here their conceptual content is not dependent on linguistic representation (which is why we can write grammars and dictionaries for other languages). In general I think concepts are not linguistic since they're obtained through transcendental syntheses, which are not themselves linguistically coded (rather, they have their only ground in the synthetic unity of apperception, in the faculty of imagination, and in the transcendental schemes).
>In general, numbers are often defined as sums of 1, ie 3 = 1+1+1 and so on
This definition is perfectly valid in formal logic. That said, in transcendental logic you also have to account for the sources of knowledge. Once you take this into account it will become obvious that 3 is a synthetically constructed concept (and not a readymade concept derived from an arbitrary definition), and its definition must account for that, making said definition a synthetic judgement.

1/?

>>22355547
>>22355276
Regarding the point concerning equality, it is true that equalities are analytic, but at this point we have to distinguish different types of equalities, since we're not dealing with formal logic here. 1+1+1=3 technically means: the operation of counting leads to the determinate quantity 3. This is not a genuine equality: rather one term is a procedure, and the other is the result of said procedure. Since the first term is a procedure, to get to result you actually have to go through it, and actually complete it: this is a result of a synthetic operation. So 3=1+1+1 is not an equality in the sense you've meant, since it is a relation between an operation and the result of said operation. This is also why, imho, you cannot know immediately the result of big sums: it's because you have not actually performed the operations entailed by said procedures. And this happens because there is no conceptual inclusion here, it is just a set of instructions that one can follow through synthetic operations in order to get to a certain result.
>"Mere recognition" seems like an even more vague statement
By that I mean that the concepts are intelligible to you, i.e. they're not mere string of sounds and words, nor they're names that refer to an indeterminate, empty concept.

>>22355500
lol nice, did you find that from an online summary?

Everyone say "Thank you, /sci/."

>>22356378
>Just saying with people said here but added more unnecessary words.
It's cute how he tried so hard to convince trolls :()

>>22346927
nigga

>>22356299
No, Ive atually read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason

>>22356378
Thank you /sci/, and for the record, all of my statements were refuted with "kant is wrong bro" which never bodes well for getting a response since there is no counter argument or logic that is being posited, it just means the other person is a tard.

>>22357447
t. Guy who has not read the dozens of refutations in this thread

>>22356378
He doesn’t understand incompleteness

Mathematic is analytic and it’s certainly so as he didn’t read Frege or apparently Gödel who did think math was entirely logical. The /sci/guy takes incompeteness way further than he has a right to

>>22357531
Read them, and even read the post where anon replied to them all in sequence just to recap for people scrolling to the bottom. Still no valid counterargument to be had.

>>22357572
>He didn't read Frege
And you haven't read Russell. Logicism has been refuted for more than 100 years now, buddy
>>22357651
I guess you just got filtered

>>22357763
Hmm, one of the greatest philosophers in history and the considerable weight of the mathematical world is wrong and a retard on /lit/ who never read Kant is right, or everyone but the retard on /lit/ is right and the retard will still never read Kant. Yeah well I have seen all I need to here.

>>22357786
Appeal to authority

>>22357786
The funny part is that Frege actually agreed with this and abandoned the project of a logical foundation of mathematics after he was made aware of the Russell's paradox. You've even failed at appealing to authority

>>22346156
It does not matter anyways anon. It is a relic from the past when people thought they can figure out secrets of the universe by playing word games alone.

>>22346156
Also no you did not get filtered. You just didnt get the inner joke of group of people who tallk in specific way about reallity. Has nothing to do with IQ or being smart, only patience and focus.

>>22357366
prove it. what is the "transcendental" logic kek

>>22358159
It's a kind of logic that does not abstract from the sources of knowledge and from the conditions of possibility of knowledge. It's literally at the beginning of the second section of the book you fucking pseud, just read it instead of wasting your time on 4chan. I could understand your scorn if it was like in the midst of the third critique, but not being aware of this stuff means that you havent even bothered going through the index of the first critique, let alone having read it

>>22358340
>he fell for the bait
Even more proof that modern 'philosophers' are retarded

>>22358340
thanks for the explanation, now I definitely don’t have to read that old cunt

>>22358357
You rn

>>22358504
kek rip that anon

>>22358504
>>22358531
>See two retards arguing and being retarded
>Call one of them retarded
>they think replying "no u" is a win and not massive cope
>mrw
Its good you guys dont realise how sad you are

>>22358504
I got what I wanted, and desu I didn't even think I'd get it. but I underestimated the enormous ego of Kantians.

>>22358603
>>22358774
>"N-n-no, you see, pointing out that pretending to be a retard in a serious discussion is something only a retard would do means that you were the retarded one"
I haven't seen this level of cope in a long time

>>22356378
That's wrong. 1+1=2 even if the system is inconsistent. In particular, if the system is inconsistent, then also 1+1=3, 1+1=4, etc.
No additional premise required there.
Also, the idea that every true statement should be provable is not a good argument because unprovable statements are not true or false, they're independent of the axioms, i.e. the axioms say nothing about them. So you can add an axiom that says it's true or false and both of those are equally valid in comparison to the original system.
You should pick up a book on logic some time.

>>22352040
Significant insight into what? Jerking off with quantity?

>>22346156
Kant is retarded, all truths are necessary, Kant simply doesnt believe in determinism because it would make him very sad so he sees contingent truths where they do not exist.
No, the weather couldn't have been any different or any human action/thought/perception at any moment in time for that matter.

>>22358833
>I haven't seen this level of cope in a long time
Me too. You're trying to defend being manipulated by me into doing my reading for me.

But I'll let you think whatever you need to think to sleep peacefully tonight. Remember to repeat to yourself, you're not an NPC. You study Kant!

ITT people who did not even actually finish the first critique calling Kant a retard

>>22359241
>"See, I can't read, which means that you're the retard"
Lmao

>>22346156
>But I fear that the execution of Hume's problem in its widest extent (viz., my Critique of the Pure Reason) will fare as the problem itself fared, when first proposed. It will be misjudged because it is misunderstood, and misunderstood because men choose to skim through the book, and not to think through it
thread/

>>22359310
I’d rather have other people summarize second-rate philosophers for me so I can focus my time on real philosopher kings like Plato. Work smart not hard.

>>22359299
>trying to gaslight people into thinking kant makes sense
"uh we can obviously see there are causal relations of cause and effects but we can also OBVIOUSLY see there is """spontaneous causality""", therefore it's impossible for reason to proceed!"
Yeah no, dude was a retard

>>22359382
see >>22359299

>>22359399
I did read it you mongoloid and it's still garbage only good to score you a tenured position and a salary

>>22359430
>I did skim it
ftfy

>>22359434
Keep believing in spontaneous causality and stay baffled by the magicks of transcendantal subjectivity, I have more interesting things to do. Unless you're just intoxicated to the sensation you get from wooing worse ignorants than yourself.