/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18114333]

Reading Kants Prolegómena right now, and I don't understand how the object being wide is an analytic trait, while weight is a synthetic one. Any anons want to explain?

[Anonymous No.18114357]

Wideness is an intuitive concept you retard
You need to weight something to tell what it actually weighs
It's synthetic for the same reason 1+1=2 is synthetic

[Anonymous No.18114370]

>>18114357
How is wideness an intuitive concept and weight not?

If you are saying that you can grasp in an instant that something is wide then you could also say that you can instantly know that something has weight and that things having a weight is an intuitive concept.

If you see a car, you won’t know how long it exactly is until you use synthetic measurement for example inches or meters.

[Anonymous No.18114385]

>>18114370
Remember that analytic propositions are known a priori, while synthetic propositions are not. You could know a car is long just by looking at it, but you wouldn't know how heavy it is until after you have the experience of trying to lift it.

[Anonymous No.18114425]

>>18114385
That makes little sense, because you are asking how heavy something is and not that something has a weight. When you see a car or for that matter see anything, you instantly know it has mass and a weight. If you see the car you don't know how wide it is, but just that it has the property of being wide.

Maybe I did misunderstand you, so feel free to explain it to me. Pretty happy to have one of the few normal conversations on this platform.

[Anonymous No.18114451]

Analytic - Predicate is contained in the concept
Synthetic - Predicate is added to the concept/object through an act of combination (Synthesis).
Bodies are extensive is an Analytic concept.
The concept of Body always already contains/pre-supposes the attribute of extension, because that is what a body essentially is - an extensive magnitude. Why is weight synthetic? Because the predicate weight, is not contained in the pure concept of body (which is really a geometric concept), weight is an attribute of body that must first be mediated by experience/sensation (it is a quality). Thus, Extension can be known a priori about bodies, whereas weight must be known a posteriori. Think about it like this, if you picture a body in your mind you must always imagine it as extensive, this is not the case with weight.

[Anonymous No.18114470]

>>18114425
>you are asking how heavy something is and not that something has a weight. When you see a car or for that matter see anything, you instantly know it has mass and a weight.
Don't get caught on words. I am using "how heavy it is" to refer to something's weight. The only way you could know something is heavy (= has weight) is if you've experienced a similar object's weight before, or your science teacher told you objects have mass, etc. It is a synthetic proposition to say "this is heavy!" because it is knowledge gained from an experience, likewise, it is synthetic to say "this object has mass" because you didn't know objects had mass until after you left the science classroom.

>If you see the car you don't know how wide it is, but just that it has the property of being wide.
Exactly. The property of being wide is part of your pre existing knowledge, an a priori proposition. It might even fit into one of your mental categories (you'll see). You wouldn't know just how wide the car is until after you experience measuring the length, and come away from that experience knowing the synthetic proposition that "it weighs that much".

I hope that clears it up.

[Anonymous No.18114471]

>>18114451
***Analytic proposition not concept

[Anonymous No.18114503]

>>18114451
Great explanation

[Anonymous No.18114574]

>>18114503
>>18114471
>>18114470
>>18114451
>>18114425
>>18114385
>>18114370
>>18114357
bla bla bla
look >>18114333 it's because at the time weight wasn't always associated with wideness, at least that's what my philosophy textbook says by quoting a modern scholar

[Anonymous No.18114999]

>>18114333
Wideness is a dimension in space and since space is known a priori, in our knowledge the concept of object contains the concept of wideness, as such it is analytic. Meanwhile weight is a dimension related to the composition of objects an as such it is known to us a posteriori when we add to the concept of the object the experience of the object, giving us weight, making it synthetic.

[Anonymous No.18115009]

>>18114451
thanks for an actual explanation
>>18114357
>>18114385
these didnt help so mich.

[Anonymous No.18115674]

>>18114451
Best explanation here.
>>18114574
>Mass reply
>Completely retarded post
Wow, didn't expect that one.

[Anonymous No.18115689]

>>18114574
Damn, you're fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.18115706]

>>18114574
>that's what my philosophy textbook says

[Anonymous No.18115837]

>>18115674
>>18115689
>>18115706
Not my fault you aren't satisfied with a simple explanation

[Anonymous No.18116081]

>>18115837
>Not my fault you aren't satisfied with a simple explanation

[Anonymous No.18116614]

>>18116081
Seethe moar

[Anonymous No.18116780]

>>18115837
I think you mean to say that we aren't satisfied with a clearly wrong explanation
I mean, what does
>weight wasn't always associated with wideness
even mean? it just sounds like bloody nonsense that you just accepted and are now parroting back to us.
I really do hope that your illiteracy just made you read it incorrectly/misremember it tho and it isn't actually the case that people are printing that sort of drivel to give to students.

[Anonymous No.18117383]

>>18115706

>that little streak of shid running down his leg
artistry

[Anonymous No.18117441]

>>18114333
He's retarded.

[Anonymous No.18118744]

Bump for Op.

[Anonymous No.18118770]

Kant's ideas lead to fascism.

[Anonymous No.18118786]

>>18114451
All concepts are synthetic. Stating that "a body is extended is analytic" is only begging the question of how you even came to this concept in the first place. It did not just arise out of thin air as it is, ergo it must be synthetic. For example, we first have to conceive of space as delimited emptiness, and then insert a body into that space (a synthetic judgement) to even conceive of extension as belonging to body, or of body itself. So the predicate of extension is contained partially in a separate concept, space or emptiness, and is thus not purely analytic in the concept of body.

[Anonymous No.18118946]

>>18114333
Errr.. Kant is a moron? Durr?