David Hume

[Anonymous No.15340074]

>Be Hume
>Write up autistic theory of impressions and habits to try and destroy causality
>Completely overlook the possibility of the synthetic apriori, totally destroying your theory of cognition which your entire philosophical project is based upon
>Everyone hates you now for being this edgy atheist memelord
>Decided to goto the swamp one day
>Have no reason to do so because you rejected teleology
>Get stuck in the fucking bog like a retard
>Everyone passes by you and no one helps
>Piss and shidd
>20 years later some even bigger autist from Königsberg totally destroys you
>Also turns out that you never understood the causes properly taking efficient to be the only one
Tell me /lit/ why do be normies like this faggot or take him seriously?

[Anonymous No.15340106]

>>15340074
I'm not sure if a priori synthetic knowledge exists.

[Anonymous No.15340121]

>>15340106
in 1+1=2
does the predicate of 2 exist in 1?

[Anonymous No.15340168]

>>15340121
It depends on how human language is represented in the brain.

[Anonymous No.15340173]

>>15340168
or math in this case*

[Anonymous No.15340186]

If Kant liked Hume, I like Hume too

[Anonymous No.15340189]

>>15340121
Why did you ask it like that instead of whether the predicate of 1 exists in 2? Because it seems pretty clear that 1 contains the idea of 2 by the successor function

[Anonymous No.15340199]

>>15340074
>Edgy atheist memelord
But isn't Hume an agnostic skeptic?

[Anonymous No.15340211]

>>15340189
not him but the successor function isn't a predicate of 1 either. if we needed the successor function to put one together with 1, where did we get that function?

[Anonymous No.15340223]

>>15340211
The successor function is 1

[Anonymous No.15340228]

>>15340189
He's a sperg. Prepare yourself for some point in this thread where he'll drop an extremely large post where he starts calling you a STEM bug along with name dropping and long-winded descriptions about philosophy, but never actually arguing philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15340234]

>>15340223
the successor function is
>S(n) = n + 1

[Anonymous No.15340255]

>>15340186
Kant only liked him to degree to which he posed interesting problems which he then did solve, consequently undoing Hume's philosophical project in the process
even still its debatable as to whether he really did """like"""" Hume and his thinking

[Anonymous No.15340261]

>>15340234
The successor function is part of the formal language used to state the Peano axioms, which formalise the structure of the natural numbers. In this formalisation, the successor function is a primitive operation on the natural numbers, in terms of which the standard natural numbers and addition is defined. For example, 1 is defined to be S(0), and addition on natural numbers is defined recursively by:

m + 0 = m,
m + S(n) = S(m + n).

This can be used to compute the addition of any two natural numbers. For example, 5 + 2 = 5 + S(1) = S(5 + 1) = S(5 + S(0)) = S(S(5 + 0)) = S(S(5)) = S(6) = 7.

[Anonymous No.15340279]

>>15340199
agnostics are just closeted atheists

[Anonymous No.15340287]

>>15340279
this

[Anonymous No.15340292]

>>15340261
>the successor function is a primitive operation on the natural numbers
great, so we both agree it isn't a predicate of 1. where does it come from if we can't find it in 1?

[Anonymous No.15340294]

>>15340292
>1 is defined to be S(0)

[Anonymous No.15340299]

>>15340292
exactly
its synthetic

[Anonymous No.15340327]

>>15340199
>>15340211
>>15340255
>>15340299
checked checked checked checked
bumping for potentially good thread

[Anonymous No.15340328]

>>15340294
that still isn't the successor function, to satisfy the successor function you need the following
>For all x∈N,S(x)≠x
>S is one-to-one.
>There is some element e∈N such that, for all x∈N,S(x)≠e
>Also, N is the minimal set on which you can define such an S.

[Anonymous No.15340349]

>>15340255
What are the main differences between Kant and Hume? And how did Kant solve his problems?

[Anonymous No.15340362]

>>15340328
You're not getting it the successor function used in the Peano axioms gives you the naturals through recursive application. It is not a function from the naturals to itself

[Anonymous No.15340400]

>>15340362
and the Peano axioms aren't a predicate of 1 either. formalizing a system doesn't change anything here. Kant fully expected us to formulate axiomatic mathematical systems.

[Anonymous No.15340405]

>>15340106
It doesn't. Both distinctions are untenable because no knowledge is independent of experience, and no meaning of terms can be established without relating to that experience (the world).

[Anonymous No.15340436]

>>15340400
The Peano axioms are the standard way for the naturals to be defined. If you can say they're not a predicate of 1 then I can say being unmarried is not a predicate of being a bachelor. I'm disregarding the standard definition of bachelor just as you are disregarding the Peano axioms

[Anonymous No.15340452]

>>15340327
begone, retard bot

[Anonymous No.15340476]

>>15340349
Kant was a response to Hume

I freely admit that it was the remembrance of David Hume which, many years ago, first interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave my investigations in the field of speculative philosophy a completely different direction.

Kant didn't solve anything Hume BTFO of induction and ethics

[Anonymous No.15340492]

>>15340349
Kant bequeathed us every horrible ideology that has plagued the planet for the last few hundred years. He is even worse than an Anglo, French, or Jew, he is (Allah forgive me for this), a German.

[Anonymous No.15340527]

>>15340436
assuming we define 1 analytically as being equvilant to the Peano axioms (I highly question this take already but I'll grant it as being totally true for the sake of argument) how were we doing arithmetic before Peano formulated his axioms? I feel like you are getting hung up on analytical knowledge, when that was never a problem for Hume or Kant

[Anonymous No.15340536]

>>15340349
Well, an important fact to keep in mind is that they were both empiricists. Hume was not condemning empiricism, he was pointing out its limitations. Nevertheless, Kant saw this skepticism (however qualified) as a challenge to empiricism, and tried to dissolve it with transcendental idealism (not full-on idealism, he refuted that). Although Kantfags will reeee to the contrareeee, he did not certainly establish that transcendental idealism is the case.

[Anonymous No.15340549]

>>15340536
>Kant is an empiricist

[Anonymous No.15340550]

>>15340536
Can anyone explain their arguments a bit more?

[Anonymous No.15340561]

>>15340492
Thats a lie the three horrible abrahamic ideologies still exis and are still destroying.

[Anonymous No.15340584]

>>15340527
I don't think the analytic/synthetic distinction is meaningful and this example we're talking about gives one of the reasons. Differing definitions of the word being talked about can shift knowledge from being synthetic to analytic and vice versa. And as you said humanity was doing arithmetic long before Peano, definitions are provided after words are used.

[Anonymous No.15340670]

>>15340584
AH, a fellow hermeticist

[Anonymous No.15340672]

>>15340584
no, it doesn't become analytics just because we formalized the axioms, if it did, anyone who didn't know the Peano axioms couldn't do math. how does a tribesman know 3 pigs and 5 pigs makes 6 pics? he has no formalized mathematics to work with, somehow he can still do this. explain how this is possible if the only way we can add numbers is by defining 1 as the Peano axioms? you skipped Aristotle anon

[Anonymous No.15340683]

>>15340672
>6 pics
8 pigs**

[Anonymous No.15340700]

>>15340074
>synthetic apriori,
how does this prove causality dummy

[Anonymous No.15340711]

>>15340672
And that is what I said the Peano axioms are just the current standard definition. And that a different definition can make what was synthetic knowledge before turn into analytic and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.15340758]

>>15340711
To make clearer where I'm coming from in math you can frequently come up with systems where some of the theorems of a previous system are the new axioms and the the previous axioms are now theorems of the new system. The analytic and synthetic switch places just by new definitions.

[Anonymous No.15340759]

>>15340711
>can make what was synthetic knowledge before turn into analytic
no, if it turned into analytic knowledge, then math would suddenly become dependent on knowing those axioms. the basis of knowledge doesn't changed just because we formulate it. this is akin to saying the sun is now written in C++ because we managed to model it on a computer

[Anonymous No.15340777]

>>15340759
Something being analytic is dependent on the definition you give for it. How you formulate the definition determines whether some knowledge is analytic or synthetic and that shows that it's not really a significant distinction.

"Those who have a brief against the analytic-synthetic distinction raise problems for what seem to supporters of the distinction to be some of the clearest cases. That bachelors are unmarried seems to many to be analytically true. But to hold this seems to imply that there is a definition of "bachelor" that includes being unmarried. But critics of the analytic-synthetic distinction, such as Jerry Fodor, deny that there are true definitions (reportive, not stipulative). So there can be no definition of "bachelor". And many have noted that defining "bachelor" is not as easy as appears at first blush. "

[Anonymous No.15340825]

>>15340777
>Something being analytic is dependent on the definition you give for it. How you formulate the definition determines whether some knowledge is analytic or synthetic
as I've already explained to you, this isn't how this works, the type of knowledge doesn't change when you formalize it any more than the substance of the sun changes based on your model of it

[Anonymous No.15340845]

>>15340825
If you define the sun as a hot ball of gas it is analytic that the sun is hot. If you define it as a ball of gas then to get that it was hot would be synthetic. Read the quoted example above

[Anonymous No.15340885]

>>15340845
>If you define it as a ball of gas then to get that it was hot would be synthetic
but this is all a posteriori, synthetic a posteriori judgements are not an issue. anon you don't even understand what you are arguing against

[Anonymous No.15340926]

>>15340885
Sigh a 1)square has four equal sides and four equal angle or a 2)square is a quadrilateral with four right angles and in which adjacent sides have equal length. Definition 1 it's analytic that the sides are all equal while in definition 2 it's synthetic.

[Anonymous No.15340944]

>>15340074
Am I missing something with Hume? I read his theory about impressions and ideas and it seems like it's just a really roundabout, longwinded version of Plato's forms and idealism.

[Anonymous No.15340957]

>>15340944
Hume's problem of induction and the is-ought problem are what he's known for

[Anonymous No.15340969]

>>15340405
>le world

[Anonymous No.15341282]

>>15340926
>Definition 1 it's analytic that the sides are all equal
no it isn't, you don't need to know the definition of a square to deduce that knowledge

[Anonymous No.15341331]

>>15340121
yes every number contains all other numbers within itself

for example 1 is merely 5 of .2 which of course would 10 of would be 2

[Anonymous No.15341357]

>>15340279
Eh, kinda, but i fell athiesm has more antithesis within it. agnostics usually see devine subjects as fanciful possibility and can usually engage in the discourse. While atheists disregard it outright. Thats what i gathered from hume as a person at least. I think calling him an atheists pants the wrong kind of picture in terms of qaulity..

[Anonymous No.15341365]

>>15341331
>>15341331
prove it

[Anonymous No.15341439]

>>15341365
disprove it

[Anonymous No.15341494]

>>15341439
by the fact that 1 only signifies the number 1. I do not confuse the number 1 with other numbers, when someone says 1, I don't have to question whether they mean 83

[Anonymous No.15341540]

>>15341494
How much more is 83 than 1? 82.
And how much more is 83 than 82? 1.

83 is just instances of 1. You could have no conception of 83 if not for smaller numbers used to construct it.

[Anonymous No.15341559]

>>15341540
>How much more is 83 than 1? 82.
>And how much more is 83 than 82? 1
this is synthetic a priori knowledge, not analytic
>83 is just instances of 1
let's say 83 instances of 1 make up something that contains the predict of 83, this still doesn't prove that one contains the predicate of 83.
>You could have no conception of 83 if not for smaller numbers used to construct it
Yes, like 1+82, neither of which contain the predicate 83. this is why we can tell it's synthetic a priori knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15342317]

>>15340074
>atheist memelord
The absolute state of you retards
He was an agnostic

>>15340121
2 is just 1+1 written differently, also what >>15341331 said
let me also see you name some actual example of synthetic a priori (or are you just going to stick to addition and not name anything else?)

[Anonymous No.15342942]

>>15340074
>Write up autistic theory
This is all philosophy tho
Meanwhile the mouthbreathers are out there LARP'ing religion

[Anonymous No.15342995]

>>15340074
All English philosophers are bad.

[Anonymous No.15343036]

>>15340549
He was an empiricist. That's why he tried to salvage the 'a priori' distinction by qualifying it with 'synthetic', and also why he was trying to refute Hume.

[Anonymous No.15343075]

>>15340969
>le non-argument

[Anonymous No.15343319]

>>15342995
>english

[Anonymous No.15344115]

>>15343319
yes,

[Anonymous No.15344499]

>>15343036
>he was an empiricist because he believed in non-empirical forms of knowledge and tried to debunk the greatest empiricist that ever lived
? you know Hume believed in a priori knowledge right? he simply thought it was all analytic

[Anonymous No.15344524]

>>15342317
>2 is just 1+1 written differently
no, it isn't, 1 doesn't mean 2, and + doesn't mean 2. if you define 1 or + as 2 you literally can't do math.why do people struggle with this so much?

[Anonymous No.15344600]

>>15340255
Kant explicitly praises Hume all the time though and not in a passive aggressive offhanded way.

[Anonymous No.15344916]

>>15344499
>tried to debunk the greatest empiricist
He was trying to get around the problem of induction, because he wanted to demonstrate a certain 'foundation' for empiricism. Kantfags often say that he "saved" empiricism (although I disagree, and don't think it needs saving).

>you know Hume believed in a priori knowledge right? he simply thought it was all analytic
He was wrong. I suppose it's pragmatically acceptable to classify an abstract set as 'analytic' once you've already defined it, but defining it requires referencing the world of one's experience. There is no hard boundary and indicates a different kind of knowledge.

It seems you're confused about empiricism. Being an empiricist doesn't necessarily exclude being a -transcendental- idealist, nor does it mean your epistemology must conform to that of all other empiricists... It just means you recognize that experience is our conduit to knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15344924]

>>15344916
*that indicates

[Anonymous No.15344981]

>>15340121
Do you understand what "=" means? Lmao

[Anonymous No.15344982]

>>15344916
>he wanted to demonstrate a certain 'foundation' for empiricism
he wanted to demonstrate a basis for experiential knowledge, yes, but this is different than empiricism which says that all knowledge is empirical. he saved empirical science, not empiricism. this is really basic philosophical terminology anon
>no such think as a priori knowledge
so, when someone tells you they are a batchelor, you have no way of knowing if they are married or not? if someone says they caught a trout in the lake, you would have no way to deduce he was talking about a fish? anon you don't know what you are talking about

[Anonymous No.15344992]

>>15344981
do you? does it contain the predicate of 1 or 1?

[Anonymous No.15345036]

>>15344992
Yes

[Anonymous No.15345135]

>>15341282
If you don't know the definition of a square how would you deduce any knowledge about it?

[Anonymous No.15345383]

>>15345135
through synthetic judgements relating to the pure forms of intuition (i.e. space and time)

[Anonymous No.15345440]

>>15345036
>= = 1
retard

[Anonymous No.15345659]

>>15345440
LMAO

[Anonymous No.15345790]

>>15345383
That makes no sense. How would you even know what you deduced applied to a square and not a triangle or a chair or an unicorn? If you don't even know the definition of something you can't even talk about it as something

[Anonymous No.15345791]

We are actually having a discussion as to whether 1+1=2

Lmao, the absolute STATE of philosophers. This is why no one takes the discipline seriously anymore.

[Anonymous No.15345866]

>>15345790
>>15345790
>How would you even know what you deduced applied to a square and not a triangle or a chair or an unicorn?
there is a difference between mathematics and phenomenal reality, the was well established by the time of the Greeks
>If you don't even know the definition of something you can't even talk about it as something
I guarantee cavemen were splitting a group of four rocks into two groups of two rocks to split them in half loooooong before we had language, let alone mathematical definitions. how do dolphins do math anon? they don't have any definitions, they don't have a word for 1 or + or = or 2, and yet they can still do math. why do you think this is possible? why is it that they can't describe a chair but they can do arithmetic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A226SlCQQsA
>>15345791
no one itt has argued 1+1 doesn't equal 2, we are arguing where the basis of this seemingly universal form of knowledge comes from

[Anonymous No.15345889]

>>15344982
>empiricism which says that all knowledge is empirical
Which is to understand that experience is a necessary condition for knowledge, an observation that neither thinker would dispute. You're broadening the scope of empiricism's fundamental claim. Plenty of empiricists disagree on the specific mechanisms of epistemology, but all would agree that knowledge occurs within one's experience. Perhaps your understanding is too basic.

>so, when someone tells you they are a batchelor, you have no way of knowing if they are married or not?
You're ignoring how 'batchelor' and 'married' come to be defined in the first place (through empirical reference). Meaning isn't just plucked from a void. It seems like you didn't even understand the objection you responded to, you were just regurgitating babby's first history of philosophy lesson.

[Anonymous No.15345901]

>>15345889
>Which is to understand that experience is a necessary condition for knowledge, an observation that neither thinker would dispute
a priori knowledge is knowledge that comes before experience, Kant believed in synthetic a priori judgements, or the ability to gain new knowledge outside of the realm of experience. read the Kant wikipedia page at the very least lmao

[Anonymous No.15345931]

>>15345866
You didn't answer my question how do you know that what you deduced through
>through synthetic judgements relating to the pure forms of intuition (i.e. space and time)
applies to a square and not a triangle or a chair or an unicorn if you don't even know the definition of a square. You need the definition to be able to say something is or is not a square this is bizarre that we are even having this conversation

[Anonymous No.15345956]

>>15345889
>You're ignoring how 'batchelor' and 'married' come to be defined in the first place (through empirical reference)
bachelor isn't defined empirically! it's defined analytically. we didn't go out and study bachelors you moron. you think scientists went and studied people who identify as bachelors, then came to the conclusion all bachelors aren't married? do you think we are holding out just in case we find a bachelor who happens to be married? we don't spend money funding surveys asking bachelors whether they are married or not, it's obviously not a matter of empirical knowledge. Hume was fine with this, he was totally okay with a priori analytic statements. as long as no new information is drawn out of the statement and it rests on definition it isn't reliant on empirical study (or as he would have put it, it isn't defined a posteriori)

[Anonymous No.15345970]

>>15345866
Or let me try it this way whatever you say you can deduce about a square without knowing what a square is I can deny applies to a square. Without a definition of what a square is you're screwed.

[Anonymous No.15346014]

>>15345931
>You need the definition to be able to say something is or is not a square
no, all shapes with 4 right angles whose sides add up to 90 degrees is a square, regardless of how we define square. if the words square actually meant squirrel, this would change nothing about the realities of geometry. 1 rock plus one rock always equals 2 rocks, even if we are pre-lingual and literally cannot speak. definitions DO NOT ALTER THE RULES OF MATH AND ALGEBRA, WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH WILL ALWAYS OPERATE THE SAME REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DECIDE TO CALL IT. if you can't see why this is different to the word chair, which has no connection to logical necessity at all, I simply think you don't get it. could you imagine a world where there are no chairs? could you imagine a world where there are no unicorns? yes. could you imagine a world where 1 + 1 =/= 2? of course not.

[Anonymous No.15346017]

>>15345901
No, he argued for 'synthetic' a priori, which is an important distinction, as he's saying that some knowledge can be considered a priori because it follows from a necessary 'form' of our experience (not that experience itself isn't still a necessary condition). I don't entirely agree with him, but it doesn't make him an anti-empiricist.

You deserve more scorn than someone who's just an idiot, because you're so smug in your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.15346046]

>>15345970
>Or let me try it this way whatever you say you can deduce about a square without knowing what a square is I can deny applies to a square
you cannot deny that the shape in pic related's angle's add up to 360 degree. you could argue what the word square means, or degrees, or the number 360, but it doesn't change the hard geometric facts about a shape with four right angles and equal sides. no matter what you say about this pic, it will not change the reality of the interior angles.

[Anonymous No.15346079]

>>15346014
And this is exactly what I said above you are using my own words to agree with me.
>1)square has four equal sides and four equal angle
>2)square is a quadrilateral with four right angles and in which adjacent sides have equal length
Two different definitions of a square that are mathematically equivalent. Except in definition 1 it's analytic that the sides are all equal while in definition 2 it's synthetic which shows that the analytic/synthetic distinction is dependent on the way we formulate the definitions

[Anonymous No.15346087]

>>15345931
The thought here is that the definition of a square is devised on the basis of the innate idea of a square as determined by the a priori form of space that constrains all possible experience.

[Anonymous No.15346088]

>>15346046
But without a definition of square how do you know the picture is a square? You're being stupid just admit your wrong and move on

[Anonymous No.15346121]

>>15345956
So, how do you know what 'batchelor' means?

>it's defined analytically
Not possible. All definition is grounded in the empirical.

If you want to call abstract sets you have synthetically defined as 'analytic', to emphasize their axiomatic nature or whatever, go for it. Just don't pretend that there's a hard boundary anywhere which demonstrates a concretely different kind of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15346139]

>>15346087
Do you know what definition is? They are not devised on anything they may use previous definitions but they are fundamentally arbitrary. Here is a new definition a fiorelckygon is a shape with 17 sides and one interior angle of 43 degrees. Analytically the fiorelckygon has 17 sides and synthetically the fiorelckygon must be convex due to 43 degree interior angle

[Anonymous No.15346155]

>>15345901
>Kant believed in synthetic a priori
>No, he argued for 'synthetic' a priori
are you even reading the posts you reply to???
>it follows from a necessary 'form' of our experience
yes, and that form is never itself an experience, it is a form of a priori knowledge which allows experience to happen. since I doubt you read Kant, let's look at the first critique. this is from the introduction:

>We see this clearly in the way that Kant defines the position of critical philosophy in contrast to dogmatism, empiricism, skepticism, and indifferentism. He seeks to carve out for theoretical philosophy a significant but limited domain, distinct fr om that of empirical knowledge and the opinions of common sense, but excluding the exaggerated claims that have brought metaphysics into disrepute. In this way, the Critique of Pure Reason belongs to a main tradition in modern philosophy, beginning with Descartes, that tries to provide an a priori philosophical foundation for the methods and broad features of a modern scientific view of nature by an examination of the suitability of human cognitive faculties for the kind of knowledge of nature that modern science aims to achieve.

but this isn't enough, let's find what Kant has to say (clarification in square brackets is mine):

>The difficulty of comprehending such a presupposition [with which one can proceed with self-confidence] itself does not disturb it, because (in the case of one who does not know what it means to comprehend) this never crosses its mind, and it takes as known what has become familiar to it through repeated usage. Finally, for the common understanding every speculative interest vanishes before practical interest, and it imagines itself to have insight and knowledge into whatever its apprehensions or hopes impel it to assume or believe. In this way empiricism is robbed completely of all popularity by transcendentally idealizing reason; and for all the disadvantages it may contain regarding the supreme practical principles, we need have no apprehension that it will ever pass beyond the boundary of the schools, and acquire any considerable regard in the community or any favor among the great multitude.

[Anonymous No.15346165]

>>15346155
>>15346155
(cont.)
what about the philosophy wikis? what do they say? This is Stanford:

>So it is necessary for self-consciousness that we exercise an a priori capacity to represent the world as law-governed. But this would also be sufficient for self-consciousness if we could exercise our a priori capacity to represent the world as law-governed even if reality in itself were not law-governed. In that case, the realist and empiricist conception of self-consciousness would be false, and the formal idealist view would be true.
>Kant’s confidence that no empiricist account could possibly explain self-consciousness may be based on his assumption that the sense of self each of us has, the thought of oneself as identical throughout all of one’s changing experiences, involves necessity and universality, which on his view are the hallmarks of the a priori. This assumption is reflected in what we may call Kant’s principle of apperception

Let's see if I can fit something from the IEP too:

>Kant expresses deep dissatisfaction with the idealistic and seemingly skeptical results of the empirical lines of inquiry. In each case, Kant gives a number of arguments to show that Locke’s, Berkeley’s, and Hume’s empiricist positions are untenable because they necessarily presuppose the very claims they set out to disprove. In fact, any coherent account of how we perform even the most rudimentary mental acts of self-awareness and making judgments about objects must presuppose these claims, Kant argues. Hence, while Kant is sympathetic with many parts of empiricism, ultimately it cannot be a satisfactory account of our experience of the world.

there, 4 sources, including Kant, who all disagree with you. why do I even waste my time coming here?

[Anonymous No.15346179]

>>15346088
Kant wasn't arguing that the word "square" inherently corresponds to the geometric shape. he spoke German lmao. I don't think you get the point anon
>>15346121
>All definition is grounded in the empirical
okay, then surely you have some empirical evidence to prove that all bachelors are unmarried. do you have a study to link or something?

[Anonymous No.15346197]

>>15346179
Well, start by answering my question. How do you know what a 'batchelor' is in the first place? From whence has this meaning been established? If you're stuck, then hint: pic related.

[Anonymous No.15346222]

>>15346179
The point is to talk about a square you need to be able to say what is a square and what is not a square aka a definition. So this
>no it isn't, you don't need to know the definition of a square to deduce that knowledge
is dumb. To deduce knowledge about anything you need to have a definition of what that thing is

[Anonymous No.15346250]

>>15346197
we define it analytically... there is nothing wrong with defining something to mean the same thing as something else, it happens all the time. here's a good edge cases anon. for a long time, the definition of swan was something like "long necked white bird". one day, people found a black swan, and we had to change our definition. this is how empiricism can effect definitions. so, in this case, the definition of the swan being white is contingent on experience. once we find a black swan, we change the definition. this is different, however from the necessary element of the definition, you can hold out for a black swan, that makes sense, but not a swan which isn't a bird. math is different than both these cases, because not only are the relations necessary and not contingent like the case of black/white, they also aren't simply self definitional, or circular, as in the other case: "a type of bird is a type of bird'. a mathematical formula can be used to bring out new knowledge not contained in the predicate of that formula

[Anonymous No.15346262]

>>15346222
>The point is to talk about a square you need to be able to say what is a square and what is not a square aka a definition
no, you don't. regardless of how you define it, the signified for what we call a square will always have those properties. see dolphins doing math, I guarantee they don't have any definitions for numerical values...
>>15345866

[Anonymous No.15346293]

>>15346262
>the signified for what we call a square will always have those properties
You've already contradicted yourself. You can't call anything a square without a definition.

[Anonymous No.15346322]

>>15346293
please explain to me how non-verbal animals are able to do arithmetic, according to your theory they should be unable to do so without proceeding from definitions which they obviously don't have. how did humans do math before we had language? it has already been proven we did, the earliest forms of written language we basically tax records.

[Anonymous No.15346350]

>>15346322
Why do you keep talking about arithmetic? You can't deduce anything about bachelor's without knowing what a bachelor is. You can not make a deduction or argument about anything without a definition of what that thing is otherwise it could be anything else since there is no definition. This is basic critical thinking you're failing here

[Anonymous No.15346397]

>>15346350
>Why do you keep talking about arithmetic
it's the most simple example of a form of synthetic a priori judgement which very obviously doesn't require numerical theory to precede it. Kant has a very good theory for why this is the case, you don't. in fact, according to your theory, the only beings on the planet who should be able to add 1 and 1 together are those who know number theory (i.e. the proceeded from the proper definitions of 1, 2, ect.), which can be disproven by walking into any kindergarten classroom.

[Anonymous No.15346421]

>>15346397
Again you contradict yourself how are you talking about 1 if you don't have definition of it? You're making yourself look stupid here

[Anonymous No.15346453]

>>15346397
Here let's give you a chance to shine take this new concept Asdfaksjepyrywioqureasdflkjasdhfas make a deduction about it without knowing the definition. This is like talking to a little kid who can't admit they are wrong

[Anonymous No.15346471]

>>15346421
how does a dolphin add 1 and 1? why are you resisting this so much. I know what 1 is, so obviously set me aside. please, this really is at the crux of the issue anon, at least try and deal with it. how does a chimp do math? it has no definition for 2 or 4, and yet it knows that splitting 4 bananas into two groups evenly means having 2 in each group EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T KNOW 2 AND 4. if you give the first monkey 1, and the second 3, the first monkey well get upset because he got less. THE MONKEY DOESN'T KNOW THE DEFINITION OF NUMBERS, IT IS PRE-LIGUISTIC. IT HAS NO THEORY OF NUMBER. HOW DOES IT GAIN THIS KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT DEFINITIONS?

[Anonymous No.15346484]

>>15346453
you know 2 really does exist, right? when you come across 2 rocks on the ground, there really is 1+1 rocks. there isn't some value here which is effected by calling it Asdfaksjepyrywioqureasdflkjasdhfas lmao, this isn't a serious objection right?

[Anonymous No.15346547]

>>15346484
It is a completely serious objection that shows how dumb your position is. Who said anything about Asdfaksjepyrywioqureasdflkjasdhfas being 1, I explicitly said I was not giving you a definition of it. Any halfway intelligent person would say that you can't deduce anything about something you don't know the definition of but your position is that you don't need to know the definition of something to deduce something about it. So deduce away tell me something about Asdfaksjepyrywioqureasdflkjasdhfas

[Anonymous No.15346576]

>>15346471
Again with the dolphins and the numbers who fucking cares? Can the dolphin tell me something about bachelors without knowing the definition of a bachelor? Can the monkey tell me a triangle has three sides without knowing the definition of a triangle? And who said the animals are doing math? The person who knows the fucking definition of math is who. Goddamm you are dense

[Anonymous No.15346606]

>>15340584
Fuck off Quine

[Anonymous No.15346620]

>>15346606
Read these fucking comments man. Most of these people don't have a clue who Quine is

[Anonymous No.15346648]

>>15346155

>are you even reading the posts you reply to???
Yes, but it appeared that you didn't understand the qualifer 'synthetic' at all, and still don't.
>yes, and that form is never itself an experience
Incorrect, the 'form' and 'content' of experience can never be divorced. Both are required for experience — and subsequently knowledge — to occur.
>it is a form of a priori knowledge which allows experience to happen
No, it is a necessary condition which shapes experience. If you want to call that condition a type of 'knowledge', well ok, but you can't be aware of any of this without the content of experience (meaning that experience is still the necessary conduit of knowledge and empiricism holds).

He's not trying to nullify empiricism there, he's trying to provide it with a more certain basis than perceived consistency (problem of induction). We've been over this.

>>15346165
>Stanford academic merely refers to an 'a priori capacity' so it must be real

>Kant’s confidence that no empiricist account could possibly explain self-consciousness
Citation for this? I'd like to see this in Kant's words. I suspect you'll find a devil in the details.
Also worth nothing that the synthetic unity of apperception recognizes the necessity of experience in knowledge.

>Kant is sympathetic with many parts of empiricism, ultimately it cannot be a satisfactory account of our experience of the world.
This is a more reasonable take. He recognizes necessary components of empiricism (the indispensability of experience), but thinks that grounding it in transcendental idealism establishes more than bare empiricism can. In other words, he was a mix of rationalist and empiricist.

>why do I even waste my time coming here?
I don't know, but I wish you wouldn't — for the rest our sakes.

[Anonymous No.15346686]

>>15346547
you are hung up on like 2 millennia behind Kant right now, I'm trying to think of the best way to catch you up... okay, to start, you can't deduce anything simply based off a word, Kant never argued for this. Kant was speaking German remember, the words one, two, addition, equals, they would be meaningless to Kant as he didn't speak English. but we can agree that there is something that words point to right? the word tree attempts to refer to something, a big woody plant with leaves, ect. Kant is talking about math in the sense of the signified. the structures of space and time are build around certain forms or frameworks, like mathematics. when we use the word one, or the word un, or the word eins, we are referring to some thing which doesn't exist in the physical world like the tree does, but instead exists as a form or framework of reality, a structure which exists pre-ontologically as the condition through which experiences like the tree can come about. if 1 + 1 =/= 2, there would be no way to experience anything at all. and, by relation, all experience then corresponds to these forms or frameworks, which is why we don't actually need to study the real world to determine that 1 + 1 really does equal 2. Kant's whole project was simply outlining the delineation between this framework and the things which appear within this framework. making up a meaningless word doesn't actually object to this at all.

[Anonymous No.15346691]

>>15346322
Not him, but a sufficiently sophisticated animal can still conceptualize its experience without language.

[Anonymous No.15346723]

>>15346648
the amount of cope in this post is actually pretty impressive
>He's not trying to nullify empiricism there
yes, insofar as the philosophical definition is concerned, that is, that all knowledge is dependent on experience, he actually did nullify it. there is a reason philosophical empiricism was virtually abandoned after Kant.

[Anonymous No.15346743]

>>15346691
exactly, so there must exist a pre-definitional conception of knowledge. this already disproves his point, you don't even need to get all the way to Kant to see it's nonsense

[Anonymous No.15346751]

Little children can correctly identify and distinguish squares, circles etc long before they develop the intellectual capacity to parse their definitions. Reflect on how that's possible or stay retarded forever.

[Anonymous No.15346780]

>>15346686
You didn't deduce anything about Asdfaksjepyrywioqureasdflkjasdhfas since it's obviously impossible because you don't know the definition. It's meaningless because you don't know the definition that is what not having a definition means that something is meaningless. But your claim is that it shouldn't matter that Asdfaksjepyrywioqureasdflkjasdhfas is meaningless since you can
>no it isn't, you don't need to know the definition of a square to deduce that knowledge
And I'm not 2 millennia behind Kant I'm about one century ahead of him. What I was claiming before the ridiculous episode of you denying basic reasoning is straight out of Quine

[Anonymous No.15346805]

>>15346484
You're making his point for him here. You have to refer to the apparent multiplicity of objects in your experience to define '2'.

[Anonymous No.15346849]

>>15346751
How do you know they can identify squares, circles, etc if you don't know what a fucking squares, circles, etc is? How do you know they're not identifying cakes, bird, or castles? Are you a schizo you have to know the definition of a word to talk about it. Aasdfa asqwerwe fasd ueriwqr iooop? Can't respond to that sentence? It's because you don't know the fucking definition of any of the words in it. Holy shit what is wrong with you

[Anonymous No.15346949]

>>15346780
>But your claim is that it shouldn't matter that Asdfaksjepyrywioqureasdflkjasdhfas is meaningless since you can
>no it isn't, you don't need to know the definition of a square to deduce that knowledge
please, quote me a single passage from Kant that implies you can gain information from a random word. I'm putting this in analytic terms for you Mr. Quine, please follow. Kant wasn't concerned with the signifier "square", he was concerned with the signified square, the object which has been studied since ancient times. not a single person is arguing you should be able to intuit a definition from a random string of letters lmao

[Anonymous No.15346956]

>>15346743
No, you've missed my point. Conceptualizing one's experience by mental association is still a means of definition (just a lot more primitive than syntax).

One could say that instinct and the pure intuitions (space/time) are pre-definitional knowledge, but these are features of experience, and don't demonstrate that any abstract set can be entirely discrete (self-referential) from that experience.

[Anonymous No.15346959]

>>15346805
no, the objects in question need to correspond to mathematical form in order to exist. you will never put two rocks beside two rocks and get a group of five rocks, this is because the conditions of experience are already constrained by the forms in which they appear

[Anonymous No.15346986]

>>15346956
>One could say that instinct and the pure intuitions (space/time) are pre-definitional knowledge, but these are features of experience
Kant wrote the most important work of philosophy ever disproving this, do you at least have an argument to back your claim up?

[Anonymous No.15347007]

>>15346949
GAH YOU'RE LITERALLY REPEATING BACK MY ARGUMENT TO ME. Without a definition a word is a random string of letters. YOU CAN NOT DEDUCE ANYTHING ABOUT A RANDOM STRING OF LETTERS. You have to have definition for a word to not be a random string of letters and for you to make any deduction about it. This whole shit started here >>15341282 where you claim you don't need to know the definition of something to deduce something about it. Since you seem to be in full fucking agreement that you can't reason about in your words a random string of letters I AM CORRECT AND YOU ARE WRONG

[Anonymous No.15347018]

>>15346723
>philosophical empiricism was virtually abandoned after Kant

[Anonymous No.15347051]

>>15347007
>GAH YOU'RE LITERALLY REPEATING BACK MY ARGUMENT TO ME. Without a definition a word is a random string of letters. YOU CAN NOT DEDUCE ANYTHING ABOUT A RANDOM STRING OF LETTERS.
yes, I never argued against this, neither did Kant. I am so confused...
>You have to have definition for a word to not be a random string of letters and for you to make any deduction about it
yes, and when Kant is talking about a square he is talking about a geometric object and not a random string of letters. he isn't talking about the word "square". as long as you have the mathematical object you can gain knowledge of it. we have the knowledge of the mathematical object prior to experience as a condition by which it appears. you can call it a square, or a gasjindfgaksdfmkjas, so long as it signifies the geometric object in space which Kant is concerned with

[Anonymous No.15347074]

>>15347018
Name some major empiricists post Kant, I am genuinely interested who you have in mind. (Hard mode, no Deleuze)

[Anonymous No.15347083]

>>15346723
>that all knowledge is dependent on experience, he actually did nullify it
Maybe you could share your alien definition of "knowledge" then, because I'm pretty sure knowledge is necessarily experienced.

I'd be willing to bet that the solar system is independent of my experience, but I wouldn't make the same bet regarding my -knowledge- of the solar system.

[Anonymous No.15347089]

>>15347051
Is this you >>15341282? Am I misreading that and how it say's you don't need to know the definition of a square to make a deduction about squares? And if I misread that in some fucking way why have you been arguing for multiple fucking posts that you don't need to know the definition of something to reason about it?

[Anonymous No.15347157]

>>15347051
And the series of posts I wrote before the stupid response gives Quines objection to this. Different mathematical definitions point to the same object but properties of the object that may be analytic under one definition are synthetic under the a different definition see this >>15340926. This is my attempt to give you an example of one of the classic criticisms of analytic/synthetic if you want it much more exhaustively worked out read Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism

[Anonymous No.15347158]

>>15347089
>you don't need to know the definition of a square to make a deduction about squares
yes, this is me. you don't need to know the definition of the word "square" to made deductions about squares as they exist in space as a mathematical object. just like monkey's don't need to know the definition of the word "four" or "two" to know it wasn't fair they only have a single banana in their hand out of the pile that was distributed (and they don't even understand the definition of the word single!). anon, have you ever heard the phrase, "the map is not the territory"? that the word "square" might not be the same thing as what the word "square" is pointing at?

[Anonymous No.15347195]

>>15347157
I know exactly what argument you are trying to make, I have read Quine. reducing Kant's project to linguistic objections is missing the entire point of critical philosophy, which I have tried to demonstrate itt. Quine should have sided with Wittgenstein rather than Russell, it might have sorted him out.

[Anonymous No.15347202]

>>15346949
The signified square is just an abstract idealization of experience — a trope. There is no universal 'square' that exists, that is a definition we have imposed.

>>15346959
>the objects in question need to correspond to mathematical form in order to exist
So you claim. I'd say that we abstract such specific 'forms' from the particulars of our experience. It is erroneous to conflate the 'form' of our experience (its bare necessary conditions of space/time) with the existence of ideal templates for objects in our experience.

[Anonymous No.15347206]

>>15347158
OMFG if you don't know the definition of square, "square" is meaningless or in your words a random string of letters. If you can make a deduction about the random string of letters square why can't you make a deduction about Asdfaksjepyrywioqureasdflkjasdhfas?

[Anonymous No.15347224]

>>15347195
No I straight up don't believe that someone who can't understand that words need to have definitions to be reasoned about has read and understand Quine. You've glanced at the wiki for Kant and at this point I'm trying to give you a remedial education in basic critical thinking.

[Anonymous No.15347241]

>>15347206
okay anon, let's put it another way. how do you spell this object?
>>15346046
can you spell it? no, you can't, because it isn't equivalent to any actual word, it is simply a representation of a geometric shape. we call this a square, but at the same time, if we have the slightest bit of self awareness, we recognize that what we are looking at isn't a word, it is a shape, and even though we call it a square, it isn't made of the letters "s" "q" "u" "a" "r" and "e". literally read Plato lmao

[Anonymous No.15347246]

>>15346986
>argument from authority
If you understand how it was disproved, then make the argument yourself.

[Anonymous No.15347261]

>>15347241
>okay anon, let's put it another way. how do you spell this object?
What?

[Anonymous No.15347288]

>>15347224
I have degree in philosophy. just one more time, even though I know it isn't getting through, Kant isn't talking about words, he is talking about knowledge

[Anonymous No.15347291]

>>15347241
I've never said otherwise square could instead be called adfasdf or adfasdfasdf or zzxsdajfahsdf. What matters is that each of adfasdf or adfasdfasdf or zzxsdajfahsdf would need to have a mathematical definition that points to the same object as square. BUT IF YOU DON"T HAVE A DEFINITION THOSE ARE RANDOM STRINGS OF LETTERS AND YOU CAN'T REASON ABOUT THEM

[Anonymous No.15347304]

>>15347261
this is reducto ad absurdum anon, it should make you say "what?". it's demonstrating how illogical it is to treat words and the things they represent as equivalent. you are saying since you can't know anything about the word "square" without a definition, then you can't know anything about squares without a definition, this is clearly absurd if you extrapolate it.

[Anonymous No.15347309]

>>15347288
I gave Quine's response to Kant but this isn't about Kant. If you can find some place Kant says that you don't need to know the definition of something to deduce something about it he's a straight up moron. But Kant didn't say that you did.

[Anonymous No.15347348]

>>15347304
See >>15347291. I never said anything about the name I always talked about the definition. This is crazy you have to have the definition of something to reason about it. Again I ask you to tell me something about Asdfaksjepyrywioqureasdflkjasdhfas without knowing the definition. YOU CAN"T FUCKING DEDUCE ANYTHING ABOUT A RANDOM STRING OF LETTERS. But if I say give a definition of Asdfaksjepyrywioqureasdflkjasdhfas is the same as a square presto all of a sudden you can reason about it.

[Anonymous No.15347360]

>>15347291
>IF YOU DON"T HAVE A DEFINITION THOSE ARE RANDOM STRINGS OF LETTERS AND YOU CAN'T REASON ABOUT THEM
>>15346046
wow, magically I have produced the representation of a square which you can reason about without a definition, it's a black and white picture. now, get this, you can even do math in your head! you don't even need to look at a formula to do it! you can come up with a formula you have never seen before, 62+1+42+60+22, and calculate it in your head! and it really does work! all pre-experientially

[Anonymous No.15347404]

>>15347348
I don't know what you want anon, I have already agreed with you that a name like Asdfaksjepyrywioqureasdflkjasdhfas doesn't provide any definitions. if you didn't know the word "square", you wouldn't know anything about "squares", you would still have access to a priori knowledge regarding geometry, including the fact that a shape with equal sides and 4 corners will always have interior angles which add to 360 degrees

[Anonymous No.15347416]

>>15347360
GAH I'M FREAKING OUT THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU ACTUALLY EXIST
> I have produced the representation of a square which you can reason about without a definition
HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW IT'S A SQUARE IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A SQUARE IS? JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

[Anonymous No.15347423]

>>15347416
it doesn't matter what we call it, that won't change what you are looking at. we are not talking about the word square. the mathematics work even is we call it a Asdfaksjepyrywioqureasdflkjasdhfas

[Anonymous No.15347466]

>>15347404
And this is exactly what I've been saying fucking repeatedly over and over. You need to know the definition of a square to reason about squares. You can reason about all kinds of other shit but not squares if you don't know the definition. And what you're talking about feeds directly into Quine's point about the arbitrariness of mathematical definitions and how analytic or synthetic knowledge depends on the definition used for the thing being reasoned about

[Anonymous No.15347467]

>>15347074
Quine, most importantly.
James

It would be simpler just to point at the explicitly anti-empiricist philosophy that you think has displaced it.

[Anonymous No.15347492]

>>15347466
>And this is exactly what I've been saying fucking repeatedly over and over. You need to know the definition of a square to reason about squares
we just proved that was false by looking a picture of a square lmao, even if we didn't know the word square, we had no definition for the words square, we could still reason about that object. even Quine isn't this retarded anon you are on your own shit now

[Anonymous No.15347493]

>>15347423
I don't care what you call it I care about the DEFINITION. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DEFINITION TO REASON ABOUT IT WHATEVER YOU CALL IT

[Anonymous No.15347517]

>>15347467
James was a pragmatist, and Quine was an analytic in every sense that actually mattered

[Anonymous No.15347518]

>>15347492
HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW IT'S A SQUARE IN THE PICTURE WITHOUT KNOWING HT DEFINITION OF A SQUARE. THAT WASN'T A SQUARE IN THE PICTURE IT WAS A CIRCLE. HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO TELL ME OTHERWISE WITHOUT KNOWING THE DEFINITION OF A SQUARE?

[Anonymous No.15347527]

>>15340186
Kant liked Hume because he took his pure empiricist epistemology to explore the other side of it, in this case, the boundaries and limits of pure reason.

[Anonymous No.15347540]

>>15347493
so I have provided a practical example of why that is blatantly false and you can't even provide an argument for why this might be the case. I think we have reached a bit of an impasse.

[Anonymous No.15347554]

>>15347540
I've responded twice you're just too chickenshit to reply
>>15347416
>>15347518

[Anonymous No.15347569]

>>15347540
And as far not fucking replying goes I'm still waiting on your deductions about Asdfaksjepyrywioqureasdflkjasdhfas without being given a definition

[Anonymous No.15347570]

>>15347518
look, I am not telling you I "know" it's a square, that would be caring about the word. I said it was an object I had knowledge of lmao. you really need to read Plato anon. you know the metaphor of the cave, right?

[Anonymous No.15347579]

>>15347517
Oh, so now we're playing the no-true-scotsman game. How dull.

Empiricism was a critical component of both their perspectives.

[Anonymous No.15347588]

>>15347554
that's not an argument you are just typing in all caps. you have done nothing to prove my knowledge over the object is dependent on my definition of it.
>>15347569
again, if you think this is what Kant is talking about you are 2 millennia behind the ball, read Plato

[Anonymous No.15347601]

>>15347540
This shit just boggles my mind so you think you can reason about words without definitions? So when you write do you just randomly insert gibberish and start talking about it? Do you even need a dictionary since if you don't know the meaning of a word you can still deduce things about it without any context? You would be great at deciphering some the ancient languages that still don't have a translation through your magic Kant powers

[Anonymous No.15347605]

>>15347579
>Empiricism was a critical component of both their perspectives
sure, in the same way materialism is an important part of Descartes perspective, he isn't a materialist though... you don't seem to have a firm grasp on the technical terms here anon

[Anonymous No.15347611]

>>15347570
GTFO of here this is about Kant and Quine you're out of your depth

[Anonymous No.15347617]

>>15347601
>This shit just boggles my mind so you think you can reason about words without definitions?
objects, NOT words. Kant was not talking about words. fuck it, this is analytic brain worms.
I give up

[Anonymous No.15347635]

>>15347611
>still thinks he can spell an object
nah I'm done anon you can have fun with your category error

[Anonymous No.15347652]

>>15347588
I notice you changed from talking about a square to an object. I graciously accept your admittance of error. And how many people am I talking to Quine was 100 years after Kant and Plato has nothing to do with this. You sound like a high schooler who has read a My First Philosophy book

[Anonymous No.15347680]

>>15347617
>objects, NOT words.
Again with the weasling out and changing talking about squares into talking about objects You can reason all you want about objects but YOU CAN'T FUCKING REASON ABOUT A SQUARE WITHOUT A DEFINITION OF A SQUARE

[Anonymous No.15347683]

>>15347570
Ok, but there's a difference between having knowledge of an object in your experience and claiming that this object manifests according to an ideal form. It could simply be that the so-called ideal form is abstracted (idealized) from our experience of similar (not universal) objects.

[Anonymous No.15347713]

>>15347652
>a square to an object
so just a bit of philosophy for you anon, this is a freebie. sign has two properties, a signifier, and a signified. for the sign square, there is a signifier, that is, the word "square", written in the English language, posted on 4chan, and a signified, that is, the object to which the word "square" is referring to. this is commonly known as semiotics. when you start mixing up signified for signifers, when you start confusing words for the objects they represent, things get really messy really fast. hopefully that helps you a bit, this is my last reply

[Anonymous No.15347742]

>>15347605
Pragmatism or being in the analytic school do not preclude one from being an empiricist. You're playing faggy rhetorical games.

Just point out the explicitly anti-empiricist philosophy that empiricism was 'abandoned' for, and I can decide wether there is any merit to your assertion.

[Anonymous No.15347750]

>>15347742
>Pragmatism or being in the analytic school do not preclude one from being an empiricist

[Anonymous No.15347764]

Here's another way to think about it. You can devise different definitions of the square that make explicit reference to non-overlapping sets of its attributes, yet nevertheless necessarily refer to the very same mathematical object. This is because all attributes of the square are inherited a priori from the structure of space, which thus itself constrains all possible definitions rather than being constrained by them.

[Anonymous No.15347788]

>>15347713
Ha no shit it's your last reply this shit was embarrassing. You fucking think that you can talk about the signifier without the signified(THE DEFINITION) and it's retard level

[Anonymous No.15347805]

>>15347764
I've been saying this so many times but they? refuse to accept it. One of them even denied that you had to have a definition to talk about squares. They're are multiple definitions of square that are mathematically equivalent but whether certain knowledge is either analytic/synthetic changes based on the definition used see my >>15340926

[Anonymous No.15347819]

>>15347788
>the signified(THE DEFINITION)
okay I said that was my last reply but I lied, one more, just because we might have actually hit the root of the issue here. the signified is not a definition, the definition is always in the signifier, the analytic, linguistic definition. the signified escapes this

[Anonymous No.15347841]

>>15347750
As expected. Alright, opinion discarded.

[Anonymous No.15347845]

my feeling from reading this exchange is that the one guy's view of thought/reasoning/deliberation is such that you can exercise your spatial/visual/temporal/aural thinking skills to detect patterns based on observing geometric diagrams obtain the real stuff in insight, in that pythagorian way that treats mathematical formalism as secondary; but the other on the guy's view thought/etc is necessarily verbal or predication-involving in some crucial way that grounds it in language.

[Anonymous No.15347851]

>>15347819
Haha then it's even worse you think you can talk about a sign without the signifier(THE DEFINITION). You're fucked either way just give up and walk away.

[Anonymous No.15347864]

>>15347764
>his is because all attributes of the square are inherited a priori from the structure of space
They aren't, actually. We define them. You'll never find a perfect instance of a 'square' or a 'circle'. They're idealized tropes of particular objects (which bear similarity, but not a universal property).

[Anonymous No.15347890]

>>15347864
I referred to the square, not a square-like physical object.

[Anonymous No.15347914]

>>15347851
>the signified(THE DEFINITION)
>the signifier(THE DEFINITION)
anon you literally 180'd there, what happened? and again, not what Kant was talking about. fuck, I really need to leave, please someone ban me.
>>15347845
yeah pretty much spot on, although itt we haven't even gotten far enough into Kant's system to get to the real controversial parts of the argument, namely that math is even a priori to the observation of patterns, ect, and can be derived directly from the pure intuitions of space and time.

[Anonymous No.15347943]

>>15347845
>spatial/visual/temporal/aural thinking skills to detect patterns based on observing geometric diagrams obtain the real stuff in insight
This is intuition and mysticism and explicitly not reasoning or deduction. My position is that you can't REASON about something without a definition of that thing. If you want to take some LSD and have the number 43 tell you it's a prime go for it but don't expect other people to give a shit. I will say intuition is how most of math is done minus the drugs but you have to justify it deductively afterwards. But the intuition is not the truth making aspect intuition can easily lead you astray

[Anonymous No.15347956]

>>15347914
DID YOU EVEN READ THE POST I WAS RESPONDING TO? He said
>the definition is always in the signifier
so I fucking changed it. And I am in full agreement this has nothing to do with Kant or Quine just some anon trying to justify his stupidity

[Anonymous No.15347959]

>>15347805
The point is that you can know all attributes of the square by a priori synthesis even when proceeding from an incomplete set (to side step the ongoing discussion about definitions in general). It is of course trivially true that if you include all its attributes in the definition, you can derive them all analytically.

[Anonymous No.15347982]

>>15347959
And this Quine's position that there is no synthetic a priori in mathematics just analytic a priori due to math just being a working out of the definitions and the definitions being amendable with their own consequences.

[Anonymous No.15347984]

>>15347956
I was sort of pointing to the fact that it seems like, until I corrected you there, you seemed to have the entire concept of semiology backwards. you basically did a full philosophical reversal over the course of two posts. most philosophically minded people would probably spend a few months (or even years) studying, to try and iron out this massive reversal in epistemological certainty that they just encountered. you seem totally unphased...

[Anonymous No.15347985]

>>15347890
There is no -the- square, that's the point. Squareness is a trope... An idealized approximation.

[Anonymous No.15348008]

>>15347959
>It is of course trivially true that if you include all its attributes in the definition, you can derive them all analytically.
Is there really any hard boundary here, between analytic/synthetic if the so-called 'analytic' can only proceed from the synthetic?

[Anonymous No.15348023]

>>15347984
Because in your own words this has nothing to do with Quine or Kant. I was just going off his picture the first one has Saussure in the corner and I'm only vaguely familiar with who he is. I see no real relevance to what was being said about the analytic synthetic distinction either I explicitly said several times that I was talking about the definition some moron even kept talking about Kant and german

[Anonymous No.15348046]

>>15347864
>You'll never find a perfect instance of a 'square' or a 'circle'
okay, lets grant for a second they are an idealized trope based on imperfect circles. the idea of perfection itself has no empirical basis. neither does the concept of infinity. you are using distinctly non-empirical concepts to try and justify empiricism. Locke and Hume make a big deal out of this, and produced pretty complex justifications, but ultimately the objection persists though Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, and beyond.

[Anonymous No.15348077]

>>15348023
our entire argument boiled down to this:
>when Kant talks about a priori forms of intuition, and he uses the word "square", is he referring to an object or a definition?
and you don't see the relevance of semiotics the conversation?

[Anonymous No.15348087]

>>15347984
And now that I really look at it his two pictures are contradictory
>>15347713
>>15347819
The sign is the object out there in the first and anything that conveys meaning in the second. Your knowledge of semiotics doesn't even seem to be coherent

[Anonymous No.15348113]

>>15348087
My knowledge of semiotics comes from studying Course in General Linguistics in a philosophy classroom. yours came from misreading an image I grabbed off google in 15 seconds. I trust my understanding on this point is far more coherent than yours

[Anonymous No.15348125]

>>15347914
can you give me your rundown of what the real debate hinges on?

>>15347943
i'm not really ready to defend anything i said

[Anonymous No.15348147]

>>15348077
From what he said
>the definition is always in the signifier
and the signifier being the word/image in the both the pictures he literally can't be talking about the object when talking about the word square. The word square can point to the object but the definition is part of the signifier with the word square at least according to anon. I suggest you understand the ideas you bring up trying to defend your other stupid ideas

[Anonymous No.15348162]

>>15348113
But again what does semiotics have to do with this? see >>15347914
>and again, not what Kant was talking about. fuck, I really need to leave, please someone ban me.
At least that anon agrees with me. Tell me how semiotics allows you to reason about words with no definitions. That is a super power I would like to have

[Anonymous No.15348204]

>>15348113
And I've already said above that I don't believe you have any type of formal philosophical training at all. You have defended reasoning about things without definitions. That is as philosophically stupid as it gets. And when challenged to reason about our friend Asdfaksjepyrywioqureasdflkjasdhfas without a definition you just flail about wildly.

[Anonymous No.15348231]

>>15347982
>analytic a priori
>definitions being amendable
Anon please.

[Anonymous No.15348246]

>>15347982
And no one even responded to the real fucking argument Quine made. Instead they just defend talking about shit they know nothing about I mean if you don't the definition of something you know nothing about it

[Anonymous No.15348269]

>>15348231
You guys really don't bother to read the posts in context do you? From the post being replied to there
>It is of course trivially true that if you include all its attributes in the definition, you can derive them all analytically.
What he means is instead of two different definitions
1)square has four equal sides and four equal angle
2)square is a quadrilateral with four right angles and in which adjacent sides have equal length.
You have one definition that combines the two. Since they are mathematically equivalent you can do that without contradiction

[Anonymous No.15348297]

>>15348125
the real debate that's happened itt is basically "what is the ontological status of mathematics?" the classic empirical take on this we see objects and patterns and construct and idea from that. we see two rock beside two rock, and we put them next to each other and see 4 rocks. then we extrapolate 2 + 2 = 4. Hume made some really important objections to what we can really know under empiricism (he basically said that without the empirical basis for causation (e.g. why 2 + 2 actually does = 4 in the first place) stuff like science was basically cope). Kant came along and instead redefined a new class of pre-empirical knowledge, conditions of experience which we already "know" in the sense they are the very structures by which we know the world. the reason we could tell 2 + 2 = 4 is because the structures of math and causation don't need to be found in experience, we already have knowledge of them through the pure forms of intuition, the basis for all phenomenal reality (those being space and time). the other anon is arguing that the knowledge can only come from definitions, and so we can no nothing about 2 + 2 = 4 without a definition of 2 + 2 = 4, which would make sense if we were only looking at math as analytical, but the empiricists themselves already debunked this idea. Quine basically wants to say math is one giant self referential system, which is derived from some sort of general approximation of reality, although not answerable to it. this gets into analytic autism, but he makes some really good points about the holistic nature of mathematical formalism. Kantians tend to think his work is impressive but it fails to actually answer the questions at stake raised by Hume. for Quine, any statement can be revised, which means ultimately, he can't actually answer why 2 + 2 = 4, only how we can use 2 + 2 = 4 in an analytic fashion with reference to a particular theory. 2 + 2 4 is only true within a certain understanding of the world that is subject to revision. there's a lot more to it but this is my effort post.

[Anonymous No.15348319]

>>15348162
>Tell me how semiotics allows you to reason about words with no definitions
no one, not me, not Kant, no one ever has argued you can reason about words without definitions. Kant wasn't presenting a theory of language. he was not trying to reason about words. I don't know how many more times I can type this

[Anonymous No.15348330]

>>15348204
>You have defended reasoning about things without definitions
see
>>15348319
if you can't even understand what I'm saying, idk what the point in talking is

[Anonymous No.15348358]

>>15348297
sorry I'm phone posting, this could be written a lot clearer

[Anonymous No.15348362]

Wow...this thread is still going? Never ending circle jerk.

[Anonymous No.15348417]

>>15348330
This whole side show started here >>15341282. My claim here >>15345135 seems to be in full fucking agreement with you here
>no one ever has argued you can reason about words without definitions
So who are these other retards I've been arguing with?

[Anonymous No.15348517]

>>15348417
because if you took a person who was deaf and dumb, and showed them this
>>15346046
they could easily deduce this fact
>the sides are all equal
without knowing a single word.
>hurr but they wouldn't know it's called a square though
that's because the word "square" is a signifier in the English language, it isn't equivalent to the geometric concept that the person is dealing with. how can a totally non linguistic person, who can't hear your words, read your words, or understand sign language, still recognize all the sides are equal, if not for some pre-definitional form of knowledge?

[Anonymous No.15348557]

>>15348269
But the point is that the axioms and definitions that eventually support the analytic derivation are themselves furnished by synthetic a priori reasoning about the structure of the mathematical object in question. That's the actual practice of mathematicians. They don't make up shit at random and test the consequences, but rather try to build sub-systems to analytically derive what they found to be true via mathematical intuition (i.e. synthetic a priori reasoning), and coheres with the overall system that was constructed in just the same manner.

[Anonymous No.15348600]

>>15348517
Wtf is the picture if not the definition? I thought you weren't going to get hung up on words. And the non linguistic person could easily derive something not equivalent to the definitions of square I gave for instance they could just see a shape with four sides to drop some properties or they could see a shape composed of four black lines to add some. To stray into the psychology territory people were treading above geometry is far from intuitive just sit through any high school math class

[Anonymous No.15348632]

>>15348362
You're the living proof of people absorbing things without thinking about them or researching. You saw the term "circlejerk" be used on 4chan many times and you thought you managed to understand its usage without checking the actual meaning. This thread is far from a circlejerk since the people in here are arguing, not patting each other on the back or doing something similar.
Develop some self-consciousness, you imbecile.

[Anonymous No.15348637]

>>15348557
And mathematical intuition is frequently false and yes alot of it is guesswork. See my post here about this >>15347943. If you call mathematicians fiddling around for ideas synthetic a priori it kind of takes the wind of out the Kant's sails

[Anonymous No.15348638]

>>15348600
>Wtf is the picture if not the definition
you think the definition of the word square is just any picture of a square? are you kidding?

[Anonymous No.15348652]

>>15348517
I'm not that other anon and am generally sympathetic to your Kantian view on these matters. But there is still a obscurity in your argument so far. The Quinean anon seems to challenge the synthetic-analytic distinction by point at the arbitrariness of definitions. Whether a judgement is synthetic or analytic is relative to the chosen arbitrary definition of the concepts involved in the judgement, or so he argues. Your response has been that definitions don't play that role in a judgement. It's instead concepts (or by whatever means we think about objects in the pure forms of intuitions) that constitute a judgement. You seem to hold that the nature of such concepts are neither linguistic nor arbitrary. Is this summary accurate? If so, two questions remain, which are perhaps also what the other anon are driving at: Why are these concepts 'fixed', in the sense that they are not as arbitrary as a definition? Secondly, wouldn't all our propositional knowledge still be subject to the Quinean objection? For even if we can somehow non-propositionally judge synthetically about maths, if we try to formulate it in a language, wouldn't we need definitions for the concepts and meet the Quinean objection?

[Anonymous No.15348693]

>>15348638
For the
>totally non linguistic person, who can't hear your words, read your words, or understand sign language, still recognize all the sides are equal
it certainly is the definition. And I explicitly mentioned what you're saying here in my post
>And the non linguistic person could easily derive something not equivalent to the definitions of square
Either you're not reading the full posts or reading comprehension is that of a childs

[Anonymous No.15348709]

>>15341357
>agnostics usually see devine subjects as fanciful possibility and can usually engage in the discourse. While atheists disregard it outright.
So basically agnostics are naive and impressionable.

[Anonymous No.15348810]

>>15340074
>Tell me /lit/ why do be normies like this faggot or take him seriously?
I'm confused. Are you just being controversial for fun or are you unaware/make nothing of the fact that Hume is one of the most impactful and esteemed thinkers in the history of the West?

You need to pick someone with some actual capacity to be controversial, this just makes you look stupid

[Anonymous No.15348824]

>>15348810
>You need to pick someone with some actual capacity to be controversial
what did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.15348838]

>>15348693
you are just using words wrong at this point, a picture is not a definition. do you mean representation?

[Anonymous No.15348939]

>>15348652
>Why are these concepts 'fixed', in the sense that they are not as arbitrary as a definition?
Kant gets into pretty dry arguments about universality and transcendental apperception but really I think the most satisfying argument is that science has always swung to the Kantian side. the idea that reality can't violate the fundamental laws of space and time is sort of the default assumption today.
>Secondly, wouldn't all our propositional knowledge still be subject to the Quinean objection?
I would say yes, although it just problematizes the whole thing more, it doesn't actually solve any of these issues. maybe it's possible we wake up one day and the discursive theory has changed such that it makes more sense to say 1 + 1 = 3 rather than 2. Hume certainly came to the same conclusion, although he seemed to actually take it less serious than Quine did. idk, maybe.

[Anonymous No.15348940]

>>15348838
I mean what distinguishes something from something else. If you showed a picture of a circle to your illiterate deaf mute they would know it's not the picture of the square because it doesn't look the same. You can not get away from having to be able to make a distinction to distinguish things that is tautological. The definition is what allows you to distinguish things.

[Anonymous No.15348972]

>>15348637
Errors stem from failure to form a clear conception in the first place, typically by mixing individually clear but jointly incompatible conceptions. They reveal themselves as internal tension, like you experience when you try to actually conceive of a square circle. A different type of error stems from the difficulty of translating mathematical intuition into formal language. Neither type seems to call into question what Kant says about the synthetic a priori.

[Anonymous No.15348982]

>>15348940
>I mean what distinguishes something from something else.
the word you are looking for there is difference. difference does allow you to distinguish between things, but doesn't have much bearing on you theory of the "definition of a square is needed to know anything about a square". unless I am missing something. where did you get the definition for definition? genuinely curious there

[Anonymous No.15348987]

>>15348972
I gave Quines argument several times.
>>15340926 is my attempt at an example. If the distinction between some knowledge being analytic or synthetic depends on the arbitrary definition used it's not much of a distinction

[Anonymous No.15349009]

>>15348982
Call it whatever you want you have to know what makes something different from everything else to be able to reason about it. A definition is a list of properties that distinguishes something from fitting the definition or being different from it. You have to have a definition to reason about something otherwise what your reasoning about could be anything different

[Anonymous No.15349047]

>>15349009
An example a bachelor is defined as a unmarried man. So is a married woman a bachelor? No since the property unmarried is different from married and woman is different from man. If you didn't have the definition of bachelor could you say a married woman is a man? Of course you could say anything was a bachelor without a definition. This is what predicate means in this context the a bachelor is defined as some object in the universe satisfying the predicates of malesness and unmarriedness

[Anonymous No.15349062]

>>15349047
>could you say a married woman is a bachelor*

[Anonymous No.15349076]

>>15349009
>have to know what makes something different from everything else to be able to reason about it
Kant would totally agree, and this difference isn't itself an empirical matter (it was the empiricists who proved this). this means that either there is no knowledge of this difference, or this knowledge is gained a priori.
>A definition is a list of properties that distinguishes something from fitting the definition or being different from it
Hegel might agree, most people thought he was crazy for suggesting this stuff. the typical understanding of a definition is attempting to be self-identical to it's object. when we define square, we don't define it by difference, we don't say "a square is not a circle, not a rectangle, not an octogon, not a pentagram, not a triangle, not a dog, not a tree, not a lamp post, not a pound cake...". I still think you need to read the Greeks

[Anonymous No.15349078]

>>15348046
Yes they are both pragmatic (used as contrast) abstractions that don't necessarily describe anything concrete, but they're also abstracted from empirical relations (they do have an empirical basis).
>perception of relative conditions of objects ~ concept of perfection
>perception of time ~ concept of infinity

[Anonymous No.15349096]

>>15349078
>perception of relative conditions of objects ~ concept of perfection
>perception of time ~ concept of infinity
not seeing how you get one from the other. it's okay to say they are pragmatic but I don't understand where you find the concept of infinity in the experience of time, or the concept of perfection from imperfect object. Hume would have said this a total absurdity outside the realm of empiricism.

[Anonymous No.15349124]

>>15349076
Where did you get the idea that a definition is a list of properties something doesn't have that is bizarre. I gave two definitions of square earlier
1)square has four equal sides and four equal angle
2)square is a quadrilateral with four right angles and in which adjacent sides have equal length
Choose a definition if something has those properties it's a square if doesn't it's not. A three sided polygon doesn't have four sides so it's not a square it's different in the number of sides.
>or this knowledge is gained a priori
I agree with this it's just an arbitrary definition in math see the two formulations of a square above that are mathematically equivalent. There are probably infinite different equivalent definitions of varying complexity

[Anonymous No.15349229]

>>15348358
no worries it's a clear and helpful post, i want to see if i can understand the gist of kant's contribution without reading books lol. would it be right to characterize what you described as an attempt by kant to "get behind" phenomenal reality in order to explain/justify from a higher level of priority/certainty our unwillingness to give up on induction/space/time?
i'm not sure if "conditions of experience" are just descriptions of the architecture of phenomenal reality - in which case they are still just ideas and the buck stops in the mind - or if "conditions of experience" are special entities with greater administrative privileges.

[Anonymous No.15349248]

>>15349124
>Where did you get the idea that a definition is a list of properties something doesn't have that is bizarre
duh, that's why difference can't be the same as definition. difference lies in precisely what the object is not. if the object is the same it isn't different. the idea of definition resists the idea of difference.
>A three sided polygon doesn't have four sides so it's not a square
sure, this is a matter of signifier though, don't mix this up again. we could have easily named a three sided polygon a square, doesn't matter. what matters is that you can draw universal inferences from a three sided polygon, such as the sum of its interior angles, regardless of your experience of that particular polygon, or the fact we decided to call it a square rather than a triangle

[Anonymous No.15349267]

>>15349229
Kant doesn't think we can get behind phenomenal reality, only determine the conditions by which phenomenal reality appears. the thing underlying appearance, the thing-in-itself, it outside of human comprehension

[Anonymous No.15349272]

>>15348987
I already answered this. Let me put it in a different way. Kant was not so stupid as to miss the fact that you can make any definition of X powerful enough to allow the analytical derivation of all attributes of X. This is trivial; just include all attributes in the definition. Done.

The problem of the synthetic a priori concerns, rather our capacity to determine, in certain domains, all attributes of X a priori, even without recourse to a definition powerful enough to allow an analytical derivation.

Let's look again at the example of a square. There is a variety of minimal non-overlapping sets of attributes just sufficient to uniquely characterize the square, and the square only. Let's call a definition which makes recourse to such a set a minimal definition. The problem of the synthetic a priori concerns then, our mysterious ability to determine, a priori, all the attributes of the square just by contemplating the object referred to by the minimal definition, despite the fact that the definition itself is not powerful enough allow an analytical derivation.

[Anonymous No.15349281]

>>15349229
>if "conditions of experience" are special entities with greater administrative privileges
sorry didn't answer this, they are transcendental as they relate to pure forms of intuition rather than objects of experience. we never actually find space and time inside of space and time. they aren't privileged in that they are more real, they don't even really exist as phenomena, they only exist as a formal structure of the mind

[Anonymous No.15349297]

>>15349248
I straight up never called it a triangle you did.
> that's why difference can't be the same as definition.
I'm starting to think you are actually retarded. What would you call a three sided polygon not having four sides like the definition of a square. A FUCKING DIFFERENCE JESUS FUCKING CHRIST
>A definition is a list of properties that distinguishes something from fitting the definition or being different from it
THE DIRECT FUCKING LINE FROM MY POST. No where does it say a definition is a list of properties the object doesn't have you just pulled that out of nowhere life a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.15349327]

>>15348517
They don't recognize that all sides are equal. In fact the sides aren't equal, and that they take similarity for sameness is an artifiact of their limited perception (i.e. they have idealized the object, not recognized a preceding ideal form).

I think it's too assumptive to go from necessary pure intuitions (space/time) to asserting a priori geometries.

[Anonymous No.15349359]

>>15349076
>and this difference isn't itself an empirical matter (it was the empiricists who proved this)
Curious. How did they do that?

[Anonymous No.15349378]

>>15349272
>There is a variety of minimal non-overlapping sets of attributes just sufficient to uniquely characterize the square
What is minimal here mean? I think I know what you mean and I also think that is very mathematically naive. Moving away from Euclidean geometry there is a math joke that the Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the Well-Ordering Principle is obviously false and who knows about Zorn's lemma. The joke is that they are all mathematically equivalent. Whether an axiom is "minimal" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

[Anonymous No.15349391]

>>15349297
>What would you call a three sided polygon not having four sides like the definition of a square. A FUCKING DIFFERENCE JESUS FUCKING CHRIST
so you are saying the definition of a square is "not a three sided polygon"? I thought already established this is not a feasible definition of the word definition lmao

[Anonymous No.15349404]

>>15349391
OH GOD ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION THEN. What would you call a three sided polygon not having four sides like the definition of a square?

[Anonymous No.15349436]

>>15349359
Hume wrote hundreds of pages on this, but the root of the problem is that there is no actual experiential basis for causation which could allow for changes. we have no experiential basis for this underlying change which supports difference, only various objects in space which happen to contain differences. There is a red ball, and there is a blue ball, and so we draw from that a particular habit, i.e. that blue and red are different colors. but there is not actually underlying causation which we can perceive which allows for these differences to come about. At the end of the whole thing, Hume basically says "even though I have proved that causation doesn't exist, this doesn't actually make sense when it comes to everyday life, and so for the average person, it makes total sense to proceed as if I didn't prove it"

[Anonymous No.15349439]

>>15348939
And I can't believe I missed this above
> I think the most satisfying argument is that science has always swung to the Kantian side.
This is most definitely not true. There are rumor's that Einstein didn't receive a Nobel prize for relativity because Bergson was on the Nobel committee and believed relativity contradicted Kant's notion of time and space. Which it definitely does spacetime is emphatically not the intuitive notion Kant espoused

[Anonymous No.15349441]

>>15349096
You get there via abstraction. You observe an apple on a tree, vibrant and unblemished. You observe an apple on the ground below it, rotting with brown spots and worm-holes. You idealize the non-decayed condition into a concept of 'perfection'. You observe the ceaseless passage of time. You observe birth and death. You wonder whether time itself has a beginning and end, which you contrast with a notion of time that doesn't begin or end (infinity). Or you wonder if the horizon ever stops, or fear of mortality prompts you to consider life everlasting, etc.

If you don't see how this happens, I think you're just being a bit intellectually lazy.

[Anonymous No.15349442]

>>15349404
a difference? it certainly isn't a definition

[Anonymous No.15349453]

>>15349439
>There are rumor's that Einstein didn't receive a Nobel prize for relativity because Bergson was on the Nobel committee and believed relativity contradicted Kant's notion of time and space
you know literally no one agrees with Bergson outside of Deleuze, right? every single physicist worth their salt studies Einstein, how many physics programs in the entire world dedicate time to studying Bergson? I would be very interested

[Anonymous No.15349461]

>>15349439
also Bergson was objecting to the mathematics, he wasn't a scientist

[Anonymous No.15349464]

>>15349442
Fucking thank you. A difference from the definition was that so fucking hard to say.

[Anonymous No.15349471]

>>15349441
simply saying abstraction doesn't actually answer the question, this is basically Locke's postion, which Hume dismantles as being non-emperical

[Anonymous No.15349478]

>>15349453
Oh I'm in full agreement Bergson was full of shit and so was Kant about our concept of time and space being a priori. Einstein's spacetime is extremely different than the common intuition
>also Bergson was objecting to the mathematics, he wasn't a scientist
As far as I know Bergson wasn't known as mathematician either

[Anonymous No.15349479]

>>15349464
I am so confused anon, I don't even know what you think this is supposed to prove. a definition is not a difference. if your point is there are differences between definitions, you still aren't a) defending your original argument, or b) objecting to Kant. how old are you anon?

[Anonymous No.15349513]

>>15349478
>Einstein's spacetime is extremely different than the common intuition
what common intuition? Kant wasn't an intuitionist, he argues against it. I can't keep trying to tease out what your words mean anon. signifier means signified, definition means difference, what could intuition mean here? idealism? idk, I need to sleep anon. I wasted all day trying to teach you Kant and it went no where.

[Anonymous No.15349516]

>>15349436
I think you're conflating things. Hume was pointing out that empiricism can't establish 100% certainties (with the exception of apodictic truths). This doesn't mean he was suggesting that differences can't be evaluated empirically (or indeed that we have any other means of perceiving/evaluating differences).

[Anonymous No.15349523]

>>15349479
>A definition is a list of properties that distinguishes something from fitting the definition or being different from it
A direct quote from my post. Wtf are you talking about? Something can be different from a definition. It can have a difference. A woman has a difference from the the definition of bachelor because shes not a unmarried MALE. A DIFFERENCE. Does that mean a definition is a difference? No. Do you speak english as a second language? Again how the fuck am I supposed to be objecting to Kant with this? Where are you getting this shit from you are the one that came up with the bizarre idea that a definition is properties that an object does not have

[Anonymous No.15349542]

>>15349523
>Wtf are you talking about? Something can be different from a definition. It can have a difference.
I don't have any idea how you think I am arguing that nothing can differ from a definition. can you steelman my position? can you accurately sum up my position anon? I am not convinced you understand what I am talking about

[Anonymous No.15349560]

>>15349542
Your position on this is gibberish. Here is a relevant pull
>a definition is not a difference
I never said a definition was a difference
Or what about this
>when we define square, we don't define it by difference, we don't say "a square is not a circle, not a rectangle, not an octogon, not a pentagram, not a triangle, not a dog, not a tree, not a lamp post, not a pound cake...
Why did you even say this? Just bizarre

[Anonymous No.15349572]

>>15349471
I didn't just say "abstraction", I explained the process in easily relatable terms (a process I know you've experienced). Come on anon, don't be a faggy rhetorician. If you have a logical argument against my position, make it... Throwing back to authority without even briefly invoking the specific arguments is a cop-out.

[Anonymous No.15349598]

>>15349560
Here is a list of the posts in order you need go through and carefully read them since you seem to be capable of hallucinating new information
>>15349009
>>15349076 the fucking bizarre one of yours
>>15349124
>>15349248
>>15349297
>>15349391
>>15349404
>>15349442
>>15349464
>>15349479
>>15349523
>>15349542

[Anonymous No.15349600]

>>15349076
this seems inconsistent. if a definition is required to be self-identical to its object, then it's required to not be not-identical its object. at least that's how identity normally behaves

[Anonymous No.15349607]

>>15349560
you actually did, you defined a definition as
>what distinguishes something from something else
which is clearly the definition of difference. or at least I am objecting to whoever provided that definition.
>>15349572
yeah, I read Locke, I understand the empiricist justification, I also understand the empiricist objection. there is a reason that Kant wrote the first critique, and it certainly wasn't because Lock had already solved the idea of a priori knowledge. if you are a Lockean that's okay anon, just be honest about it. there's no need that it is some takedown of Kant

[Anonymous No.15349615]

>>15349600
>if a definition is required to be self-identical to its object, then it's required to not be not-identical its object. at least that's how identity normally behaves
yes, I agree. this is why definitions are definitionally other than differences

[Anonymous No.15349634]

>>15349615
>this is why definitions are definitionally other than differences
in my eyes, the quoted statement is both a definition and a difference.

[Anonymous No.15349643]

>>15349607
And you fucking agreed here >>15349442
that something can have a DIFFERENCE from a definition. A DIFFERENCE DISTINGUISHES. The definition of bachelor as an unmarried man DISTINGUISHES a bachelor from a woman

[Anonymous No.15349663]

>>15349643
>A DIFFERENCE DISTINGUISHES. The definition of bachelor as an unmarried man DISTINGUISHES a bachelor from a woman
but how does this make it the definition of the word definition? just because a woman is different from a man, doesn't mean the definition of a bachelor doesn't need to include the statement "not a woman" any more than it does "not a dog", or "not a triangle". typing in caps doesn't make your basic missteps in logic seem less egregious anon, it just makes you look mad

[Anonymous No.15349671]

>>15349663
>doesn't mean the definition of a bachelor needs to include the statement "not a woman"
too tired, can't type. this typo is going to send you for another few hour loop and I can't manage lol

[Anonymous No.15349699]

>>15349663
Because I never said a definition was a difference that is something you made up. This "not a woman", "not a dog", or "not a triangle" is again something you made up. I have given multiple definitions and none of them included an infinite list of nots. Again saying a definition distinguishes something from something else just means that by following the fucking definition you can find a difference between something and something that doesn't follow the definition. You're making a fool out of yourself by making up bizarre shit to argue against.

[Anonymous No.15349708]

>>15349699
>I never said a definition was a difference
>[a definition is] what distinguishes something from something else
>clownface.jpg
good night anon, make another thread tomorrow I will probably have nothing better to do.

[Anonymous No.15349714]

>>15349708
YOU EVEN FUCKING AGREED WITH ME THAT A DEFINITION CAN GIVE A DIFFERENCE>>15349442

[Anonymous No.15349721]

i swear either i'm too tired to keep up with this thread or you people are losing your marbles. logically, semantically, and pragmatically, any proposition entails the negation of its contradictory; in all but the most memed of contexts this is true. please stop. this is not allowed.

[Anonymous No.15349737]

>>15349714
But seriously let this be a lesson to anyone taking the philosophy discussion here seriously. Most of the people here are LARPers that fixate on a certain philosophy as a contrarian identifier and lack even basic reasoning skills. No Kant is not taken seriously anymore philosophy has moved on and he's primarily of historical interest. Just pretending like all of philosophy after him just did not happen is a brainlet take.

[Anonymous No.15349741]

>>15349721
I think the last one was just trolling me but some of the earlier ones genuinely seemed to believe their crap

[Anonymous No.15349849]

>>15349714
please, spend the night steelmanning my case as best you can, and post another thread in the morning. I am actually quite interested in what you think I'm saying. if you did, you know what I'm going to say, right? that just because you can draw differences from definitions doesn't mean differences and definitions are the same thing. now you are probably going to sperg in all caps saying that isn't what you believe, but if so, why this post anon? why are you still defending this retarded definition of the word "definition" if you think it's wrong?
>>15349737
let this be a lesson to not trust self-aggrandizing people on 4chan who argue against basic philosophical terminology (pic related)
>>15349721
this was Hegel's position and it is far more controversial than Kant's, especially when it comes to analytic discussions like the ones itt

[Anonymous No.15349889]

>>15349607
So you understand the arguments, but you don't want to be straightforward and make them, you'd rather I just uncritically accept that your preferred philosohper is correct. Great. Real quality post anon.

[Anonymous No.15349902]

>>15349889
I already made this effort post itt
>>15348297

[Anonymous No.15350002]

>>15349902
Okay, I guess. I don't disagree that most empirical observations are uncertain (excepting apodictic ones), I just don't see what other conduit there is for establishing concepts (non-empirical concept seems like a non-sequitur). Contrary to all the hullabaloo, Kant did not demonstrate that you can extrapolate from pure intuitions to a priori concepts.

[Anonymous No.15350079]

>>15346088
You're confusing syntax & semantics. The word "square" is just a symbolic reference.

[Anonymous No.15350446]

>>15340074
>Completely overlook the possibility of the synthetic apriori
imagine being this stupid