/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23372951]

Every other science presupposes the intelligence as already complete; the philosopher observes it in its genesis, and brings it into being, so to speak, before his eyes.

[Anonymous No.23373017]

>>23372951
>be anon
>pick random german idealist
>post random quote from their work
>zero other explication, nothing to say, no arguments, no further development of the material presented
>shit up the catalog with dozens of posts just like this one
>???
>profit (?)

[Anonymous No.23373019]

Yeah, but you haven’t solved the width problem, brotatochip

[Anonymous No.23373031]

>>23372951
Ages of the World/Word is bae. There is a crack w/in realiti itself..

[Anonymous No.23373130]

>>23372951
Bringing it into being?! My word! You mean I was not born with it? This sounds like a dreadful induction, can you by chance prove this to me?

[Anonymous No.23373290]

>>23373130
...though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience.

[Anonymous No.23373295]

>>23373290
Begins with induction? You mean to tell me that something stops being induction and you can communicate it to me without using induction at all? Even if I don't know it already?

[Anonymous No.23373302]

>>23373017
still better than half the other posts actually shitting up the board

[Anonymous No.23373306]

>>23373295
experience =\= induction

[Anonymous No.23373309]

>>23373306
Myth of the given

[Anonymous No.23373315]

>>23373309
myth of the what?

[Anonymous No.23373320]

>>23373306
Ah, so you have a universally agreed upon deductive definition of what induction is?

[Anonymous No.23373323]

>>23373320
>deductive definition
wut?

[Anonymous No.23373324]

>>23373315
Read Sellars

[Anonymous No.23373336]

>>23373324
why?

[Anonymous No.23373346]

>>23373323
Yes, that was actually the design of my statement, sort of something to make you think. Oh these confounded inductions.

[Anonymous No.23373357]

>>23373346
why are you so hung up on induction?

[Anonymous No.23373372]

>>23373357
Why would anyone be hung up on induction?

[Anonymous No.23373377]

>>23373372
I know. That's what I'm asking. Why are you so obsessed with induction?

[Anonymous No.23373384]

>>23373377
Am I obsessed with induction? I was asking the various metaphysicians on here for deductive answers, if anything you should be asking why I'm seemingly obsessed with deduction should you not?

[Anonymous No.23373398]

>>23373384
You do know inductive reasoning is deductively invalid right? Inductive reasonings only justification is itself inductive reasoning, which despite it's apparent usefulness always makes it flawed reasoning.

[Anonymous No.23373399]

>>23373398
You sound like you know some metaphysical deductive truth then, surely you can convey it to me right?

[Anonymous No.23373410]

>>23373399
synthetic a priori truths, yes, not empirically derived yet amplifying knowledge.

[Anonymous No.23373431]

>>23373410
So is this your way of telling me that all of what you know is based on flawed reasoning? You are reduced to telling me the metaphysical wonders of 1+1=2? Which is already compromised by an inductive derived symbology system, is this your way of telling me that if you wanted to demonstrate your 1+1=2 to someone unfamiliar with it that you would have to remove the symbols and use some sort experiential instance of putting one thing and another thing together which involves induction which is already flawed by your own admission? I was not born knowing 1+1=2, I had to figure it out on my own through experience or have someone tell me, which is inductive in nature. Perhaps I am mistaken, I will ask again, what synthetic a priori truths do you have that you can convey to me?

[Anonymous No.23373440]

>>23373431
>I was not born knowing 1+1=2
>t. doesn't know

[Anonymous No.23373448]

>>23373431
...it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion)...

[Anonymous No.23373449]

>>23373440
Still need induction? I thought you had synthetic a priori truths? Are you afraid you might be right about something and tell me a redundancy or I suspect you are just afraid you are not capable of conveying anything and that is why you are now saying nothing.

[Anonymous No.23373464]

>>23373448
Quite possible? Still drawing from the well of flawed reasoning? Why are you still obsessing over induction, I thought you had deductive and synthetic a priori truths to convey to me of metaphysical merit?

[Anonymous No.23373466]

>>23373449
>Still need induction?
No I don't. I'm referring to innate knowledge, the platonic doctrine of recollection, the kantian pure concepts, etc.

[Anonymous No.23373470]

My dear friend of a recently bygone thread (transferred, I very well know, but, alas!, how obstructed it made all the interactions therein), how could we learn anything? Innate or not, how could anything have the slightest correspondence needed for representation?

[Anonymous No.23373472]

>>23373466
Then are you afraid of speaking a redundancy?

[Anonymous No.23373482]

>>23373472
>speaking a redundancy?

[Anonymous No.23373489]

>>23373482
Is there a reason you cannot tell me what these deductive or synthetic a priori truths of metaphysical merit are?

[Anonymous No.23373494]

>>23373489
>examples???
Law of Identity
Law or Excluded Middle
Law of Non-Contradiction
Number theory
Set theory
Dialectics
Dialetheism
Metaxology
Analogia Entis
Etc.

[Anonymous No.23373499]

>>23373489
I can tell you what they are, but that wouldn't be deducing them, which shows their synthetic a priori nature.

But to satisfy your curiosity, here is one:

>The synthetical unity of consciousness is, therefore, an objective condition of all cognition, which I do not merely require in order to cognize an object, but to which every intuition must necessarily be subject, in order to become an object for me; because in any other way, and without this synthesis, the manifold in intuition could not be united in one consciousness.

[Anonymous No.23373504]

>>23373494
I don't know what those are, can you explain them to me without using induction of any sort or referring to experiential circumstances?

[Anonymous No.23373507]

>>23373504
you have to be trolling

[Anonymous No.23373508]

>>23373504
Does the diachronic invalidate the synchronic?

[Anonymous No.23373509]

>>23373504
Can you try to doubt induction without using induction, that is, without communicating them through symbols, through sound/visible letters, etc.?

[Anonymous No.23373530]

>>23373507
>>23373508
>>23373509
Does it matter? If I don't know then it is not a priori, and you must use induction to convey it. How else does anyone learn anything? Convey the definitions of all of them without induction, I asked for deductive and synthetic.

>>23373499
I agree, if what you are saying is true then it would not have to be deduced, explain your quote and how this is something of metaphysical merit to me without using induction, it is not something I recognize as true a priori.

[Anonymous No.23373540]

>>23373530
Without synthetic unity of apperception knowledge would be impossible. The skeptic plays language game w definitions of word knowledge. We can assume subject and objects and predicates and identity and deduction and induction. Whether induction comes from deduction or vice reversa is a matter of opinion.

[Anonymous No.23373542]

>>23373530
Ok, so let's begin: what do you mean by ''convey''?

[Anonymous No.23373554]

>>23373504
I know I get it. You're implying the language I speak to define terms and communicate judgments and inferences is itself a system of symbols which have to be all empirically learned. But you are entirely missing the point: in order for me to even have a unified self-conscious experience within which to learn anything at all, certain powers must already exist and operate logically prior to that experience which make that experience possible and which therefore also make all empirical knowledge (even language) subject to, and conditioned by, their influence.

[Anonymous No.23373561]

>>23373530
>it is not something I recognize as true a priori.
just because (you) don't recognize it as true doesn't mean it's not true. The true is true regardless of what you believe.

[Anonymous No.23373564]

>>23373540
You are more than welcome to use a different symbolic language other than English to convey what you believe to be synthetic and deductive if you are under some impression I am angling at a quantifier shift. The great thing about this is that you literally have not told me any truths yet, so it seems you are trying for the quantifier shift, although I will amend that last part in light of the fact that we are now in agreement it is a matter of opinion, and both need to draw from the same well regardless.

>>23373542
You still need induction? I thought deductive meant you could just convey it a priori? Is this your way of saying you cannot do this?

[Anonymous No.23373576]

>>23373561
I agree, so why is it so hard to pull some deductive and synthetic reasoning from you? Explain metaexology without use of induction.

[Anonymous No.23373586]

>>23373576
>>23373554

[Anonymous No.23373593]

>>23373564
But you are the one assuming induction, for you expect something that is going to be conveyed. Why are you presupposing induction if you're questioning it?

[Anonymous No.23373615]

>>23373586
So, before any languages and symbological systems were created humans were born knowing 1+1=2 or did they have to put one stick and another together to figure it out? Are you telling me, that you can prove with deduction that the moment you were born you possessed a priori knowledge of something? Are you saying that I can take a baby that just slid out of its mother's twat and get it to reason putting one stick and another together automatically?

[Anonymous No.23373617]

>>23373593
So you can explain metaexology to me in entirely deductive terms?

[Anonymous No.23373628]

>>23373617
Again, why are you taking induction for granted expecting me to explain and you to be explained to?

[Anonymous No.23373633]

>>23373564
Symbolisms always bear some relation to and influence upon and from the reality to which they refer. The first step of rationalism is to admit laws of identity and deduction from whence to derive logic and numbers and empiricisms and maths. Some claim however that this approach is reductive. Common scholarly opinion posits polytechnics. And social creation of concepts. Even tho for example there is a metric standard. But even that degrades. You have heard of meta induction problem no? Cannot inductively ground induction? What of measurement problem? Cannot ground measure without measure? We are embedded. So the mystery is not when deduction doesn't work. But why it works at all. So what if deduction cannot self ground? The grounding of the ground is not a ground.

Anyway: an esoteric ancient deduction
>mathematical truths are eternal
>only like can know like
>there must be an eternal soul

[Anonymous No.23373637]

>>23373615
Subitization?

[Anonymous No.23373645]

>>23373628
Am I the one taking it for granted? You are the one who cannot seem to do it. Anyone can go learn about it, but that does require induction. So am I to conclude that you are not able to do this?

[Anonymous No.23373650]

>>23373615
1+1= 2 is a mathematical proposition not a metaphysical one, so again you are wide of the mark. The issue is that there is knowledge much more general than mathematical or empirical knowledge that we have because it is preinstalled in our biological harddrives and is what makes mathematical and empirical knowledge in the first place. So no babies don't know 1+1 = 2 but they do have preconscious knowledge which which makes such mathematical and empirical knowledge in the first place, and is therefore a priori.

[Anonymous No.23373653]

>>23373615
We cannot justify knowledge inductively
But we can have some justified knowledge
Therefore all our knowledge is a priori [innate, deductive]

[Anonymous No.23373655]

>>23373633
You already admitted the reason why so much of this stuff works. I agreed.

>>23373637
Presupposition of already having learned a way to quantify baked in.

[Anonymous No.23373664]

>>23373645
>You are the one who cannot seem to do it.
To do what? Why do you think a doer does things and these are done?
>Anyone can go learn about it, but that does require induction
Can you explain, then?

[Anonymous No.23373679]

>>23373650
So the only thing you can tell me a priori is that we know nothing and have to learn the rest.

>>23373653
Still requires learning.

[Anonymous No.23373685]

>>23373664
I knew you couldn't do it. Don't feel too bad though, think it go do it is perfectly Nietzschean, we are in agreement again.

[Anonymous No.23373691]

>>23373679
Learning is merely the phenomenal realization or actualization of knowledge

[Anonymous No.23373692]

>>23373679
>So the only thing you can tell me a priori is that we know nothing and have to learn the rest
read that post again

[Anonymous No.23373695]

>>23373685
Why you don't answer any of my questions?

[Anonymous No.23373699]

>>23373685
What if unknowing were a way to deepen knowing????

[Anonymous No.23373709]

>>23373679
Learning necessitates induction
We cannot have knowledge by induction
Therefore we don't learn anything [yet we have knowledge]

[Anonymous No.23373713]

>>23373691
Then surely you possess some metaphysical deductive truth?

>>23373692
Reread it. If you want to prove me wrong then what is the sum total of and nature of the a priori knowledge of a newborn fresh from its mother's that?

>>23373695
You have not answered mine. You are learning via induction of the nature of reciprocity.

>>23373699
You only carry the burdens you choose. Is the deepest hole not the most empty?

[Anonymous No.23373720]

>>23373713
Ntas but try meditation broski. Better than books. Rationalism proper is a super rationalism if ya catch my drift...

[Anonymous No.23373727]

>>23373713
>You have not answered mine
I have not what? What does answer mean? Does this imply some question?

[Anonymous No.23373729]

>>23373713
>If you want to prove me wrong then what is the sum total of and nature of the a priori knowledge of a newborn fresh from its mother's that?
I don't care to prove you wrong. But here are the pure a priori concepts of the mind anyways. Note also this knowledge is preconscious; we have and use this knowledge everyday although we are not explicitly aware we have and use it.

[Anonymous No.23373730]

>>23373713
>Then surely you possess some metaphysical deductive truth?
I gave you one already about innate, a priori knowledge.

[Anonymous No.23373739]

>>23373709
Knowledge --> Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study. The state or fact of knowing. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.

Learning is the act of, and is recognized as a synonym.

You may want to represent whatever it is you thought you were conveying in a different symbolic language if you are under the impression it is supposed to prove a point. Otherwise you are telling me induction is necessary, and I am in agreement, so if that was your intent then I agree.

[Anonymous No.23373746]

>>23373739
stop sucking your own dick inductianon

[Anonymous No.23373753]

>>23373739
Knowledge is an actual apprehension, yes, you could also call it familiarity and awareness, though conditionally regarding temporal experience. Learning is a process, an act, which needs a power, potentia.

[Anonymous No.23373768]

>>23373720
I will take this under advisement.

>>23373727
Yes, I do tend to get multi-responses mixed up periodically, I will ask it again, can you convey to me any deductive or synthetic truths that do not rely on induction?

>>23373729
Newborns have no conception of agency. That entire list is something that has to be learned, this is not to say I disagree with the concepts or am implying they lose importance, or in any way to make trivialities of them, but they are learned.

>>23373730
The only person in this thread who has provided a priori knowledge to me said we all know nothing and have to learn the rest. If that was you then I agree.

>>23373746
I perhaps came off a bit harsh, I do commend you on the use of syllogism, that aside I will go ahead and agree based on agreed upon definitions.

[Anonymous No.23373772]

>>23373753
You are arguing for a definition that is not part of the agreed upon lexicon. Can you make a purely deductive case for this?

[Anonymous No.23373775]

>>23373768
>can you convey... that do not rely on induction?
I genuinely want to know first why you are relying on induction if you're questioning its validity. Is it impossible to have this answer from you?

[Anonymous No.23373789]

>>23373775
Well, there are 2 answers. The first is that I already came to grips with the nature of it, and I more or less just stick to agreed upon terms under the auspices this is generally recognized, in other words I try to stick to Hume's argument about why we need induction regardless of its latent flaws. The second answer is that validity is deductive, so if we all want to get into hair splitting contests I'm not sure why you are bringing validity up in reference to induction?

[Anonymous No.23373792]

>>23373772
I think these quibbles over variations of lexical definitions are irrelevant, you can change the word 'knowledge' for another, 'apprehension', but the fact is that there is a state that is actual (your own definition of knowledge says this, ''state or fact of knowing'') and another that is diachronic, which befits 'learning'.
But the syllogism >>23373653 is already proof that we do not learn, that is, we do not get anything new.

[Anonymous No.23373798]

>>23373792
You were unable to express this in the recognized lexicon of English. You are more than welcome to choose a different symbology, I may or may not know the language. If you want to make the argument then you will need induction either way, so you have admitted induction is necessary and we are in agreement or you perhaps should find the symbology to convey your intended meaning that I do not know of and this will require induction as well.

[Anonymous No.23373810]

>>23373789
>Hume's argument about why we need induction regardless of its latent flaws
We need something that is flawed, but if we need it, then it is not so flawed, there might be some state between flawed and perfect, for contrariwise, flawed will have very different degrees of imperfection, hampering its very definition. So can't we say that induction, even if not proven transcendentally, at least works, is able to produce useful effects? What do you think of William James' pragmatic justification?
>'m not sure why you are bringing validity up in reference to induction?
Because, if it makes sense, I find it strange that you are demanding justification for something which you yourself is presupposing. Seems like a mischievous trick.

[Anonymous No.23373829]

>>23373768
>That entire list is something that has to be learned
what part of
>this knowledge is preconscious
did you not understand?

[Anonymous No.23373836]

>>23373798
A character cannot be something it is not, so tautologically things are confined to themselves, or better, represent themselves as what they are, recursively. A-priority follows from the fact that its proper knowledge does not need to be tested, verified, checked more than once, whenever it is realized. Its temporal character is thus empty, adds nothing to the knowledge, which is what it is regardless of before and/or after. As analogy, we do not need to have in mind every single piece of knowledge we have, whatever its kind, empirical, mathematical, in order to have knowledge of it, we do not need to remind ourselves every second of our life that 8 = 1 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 1 in order to be able to assert this knowledge as actual. Induction is necessary on phenomenal, sensual side of experience, and this is why it is just as confused, not certain, even though we have usefulness from them.

[Anonymous No.23373873]

>>23373810
I can tell you what I have acquired over the years, induction itself has flaws, if you want to go after it in a vacuum that is perfectly fine, it is usually always a one outcome spectacle via 2 routes, nihilism through triviality or scepticism. If you want to make claims another claim is wrong then do so, everyone is drawing from the same well, if you have a noteworthy claim then by all means make it, everyone is drawing from the same well. If you want to use the criticism of induction as a means of argument against someone's claim with no other purpose or merit, then I have found the best remedy is take no prisoners. I honestly don't know how popular the approach is, but I know it works. There are no tricks on my end, I already admit it is flawed, I asked for purely induction free thinking knowing I do not technically possess it, I have already had to deal with quantifier shifters and all other sorts of mischief before, I have no tricks to pull, I already came to grips with it. But I can tell you if it is tolerated in an actively malicious way by even one person then the whole well becomes poisoned for everyone. My tolerance is pretty high, I might even go so far as to say I would just accept the fatal dose if I had to, if only because logic demanded it of me. But if it can be rooted out, it is no different than excising a tumor before it spreads. Regardless of what you think of me, wherever you are, even if I am completely shunned here, if it is tolerated in an active and malicious way, you are allowing the well you drink from to be poisoned, not just mine, everyone.

[Anonymous No.23373887]

>>23373768
>The only person in this thread who has provided a priori knowledge to me said we all know nothing and have to learn the rest.
I already told you reread >>23373650
becsuse that's not what I said. You either can not understand or choose not to understand because it invalidates your beliefs.

[Anonymous No.23373892]

>>23373873
I'm not sure this well exists, or what is in there is so pure as we might think. Maybe what we drink can be impure to the degree that some of our organs ache, but not to the degree that it can kill us. Perhaps at this point we have created a super natural resistance.

[Anonymous No.23373894]

>>23373768
>a priori knowledge, we all know nothing
what???
>a priori knowledge, we have to learn
what??????

[Anonymous No.23374669]

bump

[Anonymous No.23374717]

>>23373494
Mathematics is entirely analytic tho. You can just define a domain of abstract objects to do what you want.

[Anonymous No.23374721]

>>23373431
Of course you weren't born with the knowledge of addition, but you were born with the capacity for addition. That might sound trivial, but my dog has no capacity for addition.

An easy way to think of mental faculties is to compare them to physical faculties. We have receptors in our brains that allow us to distinguish one color from another, hence color vision exists a priori. Once again, my dog will never see colors as well as me no matter how much she studies colors lol. Her color receptors are simpler. Likewise, here mind is simpler and then doesn't have a capacity for human understanding. These various capacities of human understanding are literally what makes us human.

Now idk if I'm the retard or you're the retard. Do you think we are blank slates without any code already written into us?

[Anonymous No.23374737]

>>23374717
This is actually a fair point. The axioms in math are chosen and that is what makes the different fields. For example, Euclidean geometry just says "let's assume this Euclid nigger is right" and then analytically breaks things down from there.

[Anonymous No.23374746]

>>23373561
What if he is just so stupid anon? What if he is an absolute retard? Did your boyfriend Kant ever think about that? Maybe people are just so stupid that they lack everything a priori anon. Maybe there aren't any faculties of human understanding because people are just so stupid that they don't understand anything. This is truly a revelation.

[Anonymous No.23374751]

>>23374717
no it isn't

>We might, indeed at first suppose that the proposition 7 + 5 = 12 is a merely analytical proposition, following (according to the principle of contradiction) from the conception of a sum of seven and five. But if we regard it more narrowly, we find that our conception of the sum of seven and five contains nothing more than the uniting of both sums into one, whereby it cannot at all be cogitated what this single number is which embraces both.

They are synthetic a priori

[Anonymous No.23374758]

>>23374746
without the categories they wouldn't people, and also yes Kant knew some people wouldn't understand.

[Anonymous No.23374924]

>>23372951
The German idealists are gnostic morons. I'm not sure how that all started with them. I blame Descartes, despite him being a Frenchman.

[Anonymous No.23374937]

>>23374924
why?

[Anonymous No.23375637]

>>23374751
The conception of 7 + 5 is identical with 12 in modern mathematical formalism. They follow from the definitions of the addition operation, of 7 and 5, and of 12.

0 = {}
x + 1 = x u (x)
the (+y) function can be defined recursively
0 + y = y
(x + 1) + y = (x + y) + 1
So if you use these equalities to analyze the expressions of 12 and (7+5), they become the same.

[Anonymous No.23375974]

>>23375637
>They follow from the definitions of the addition operation, of 7 and 5, and of 12.
No they don't. The actual arithmetical operation has to be carried out which is an activity over and above the mere defining or analysis of these concepts.

[Anonymous No.23376135]

>>23373829
>>23373836
>>23373887
>>23373894
>>23374721
I am tremendously happy that all of you are still talking to me in English, I am so delighted to hear all of you have to use induction, I have to use it too.

[Anonymous No.23376234]

>>23375974
They do follow.
5 + 7 = (0 + +1 + 1 + 1 +1 + 1) + 7 = 7 +1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 8 + (...) + 9 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10 + 1 + 1 = 11 + 1 = 12

All of these equalities follow by definition. E.G. 12 is defined as nothing more than 11 + 1.

[Anonymous No.23376295]

>>23376234
12 defined as that after the fact of the arithmetical operation, not before from mere analysis of the concepts. It is more obvious with larger numbers. Tell me what 1357544.6754 + 643357866643.4534 is equal to prior to the actual application of the arithmetical operation? Don't actually add anything, just analyze the concept of these numbers and the concept of the arithmetical operator and find the sum. Pro tip: you can't

[Anonymous No.23376331]

>>23376295
>12 is defined as that after the fact of the arithmetical operation
it quite literally is not. Within Peano, 12 is nothing more than the condensed form of S(S(...(0)))))))))))

[Anonymous No.23376366]

>>23376331
reply to the second part of my post

[Anonymous No.23376377]

>>23376366
My reply to the second part can be deduced from my reply to the first.

[Anonymous No.23376390]

>>23376377
>Tell me what 1357544.6754 + 643357866643.4534 is equal to prior to the actual application of the arithmetical operation? Don't actually add anything, just analyze the concept of these numbers and the concept of the arithmetical operator and find the sum.
Do this. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.23376398]

analytic and synthetic propositions have nothing to do with anything except the subjective understanding of the person interpreting the statement. if you never knew what the word bachelor meant, then the statement "a bachelor is an unmarried man" is synthetic. from thereon forth, it's analytic. prove me wrong
>protip, you cant

[Anonymous No.23376406]

>>23376390
As soon as you admit that these can be deduced from ZFC axioms, you have conceded the point, because those axioms are themselves definitional statements..

[Anonymous No.23376412]

>>23376398
If no definition is given to the statement bachelor, then the statement is not synthetic, but meaningless. If a definition is given which is different, then the statement becomes different.

[Anonymous No.23376417]

>>23376398
> if you never knew what the word bachelor meant, then the statement "a bachelor is an unmarried man" is synthetic.
it's not. it would just be meaningless.

[Anonymous No.23376422]

>>23376406
>you have conceded the point
no I haven't. definition is not the same as actually adding.

[Anonymous No.23376426]

>>23376422
"actually adding" is the same as analyzing the definitions within set theory or peano.

[Anonymous No.23376430]

>>23376426
no it's not

[Anonymous No.23376432]

>>23376430
yuh huh.

[Anonymous No.23376441]

>>23376432
nope

[Anonymous No.23376459]

>>23376412
>>23376417
How would it be meaningless? You literally just received a definition of a word. Something new was added.

[Anonymous No.23376469]

>>23376459
Words without meanings have no meanings.

[Anonymous No.23376475]

>>23376469
But it has a meaning.

[Anonymous No.23376480]

>>23376475
you literally said it's undefined dummy

[Anonymous No.23376697]

>>23376480
Where did I say that? Not trying to trick you btw, I think you’re not carefully reading what I’m saying and assuming I said more than I actually did.

[Anonymous No.23376706]

>>23376697
>if you never knew what the word bachelor meant

[Anonymous No.23376710]

Love Schelling

[Anonymous No.23376714]

>>23376706
So are you trying to argue for solipsism? Just because you don’t know what a word means doesn’t mean it is undefined.

[Anonymous No.23376735]

>>23376714
that's literally what undefined means unless you now suddenly believe words have objective definitions existing independent of the human mind and inscribed by nature herself into the fabric of reality.

[Anonymous No.23376844]

>>23376735
You're not grasping what I'm saying. I said the the analytic-synthetic distinction is subjective. Whether a proposition is analytic or synthetic depends on the contents of the mind parsing it. Just because I don't know what "bachelor" means doesn't mean that nobody else knows what it means. If you know the definition of the term, and then you make the proposition that "A bachelor is an unmarried man.", it is analytic to you and synthetic to me. And the first time anybody ever uses the term "bachelor" in such a way that its meaning can be inferred, whether it is colloquial use or a formal definition, it is also a synthetic proposition.

That's all I'm saying. I don't know where you get that idea that I believe that words don't have meanings or whatever.

[Anonymous No.23376889]

>>23376844
>the first time anybody ever uses the term "bachelor" in such a way that its meaning can be inferred, whether it is colloquial use or a formal definition, it is also a synthetic proposition.
there is no synthesis here, the concept of bachelor is not amplified, it is merely assigning and fixing a variable to a constant. It is not the adjoining of two unconnected concepts, but the adjoining of an intuition to a concept.

[Anonymous No.23376918]

>>23376889
>It is not the adjoining of two unconnected concepts
That's literally what is happening. There is nothing that connects "bachelor" with meaning "unmarried man" until a conventional synthesis occurs. It's a fact about the world that "bachelor" is used in the English language by English speakers to mean "unmarried man." When you first learn about the word, you are at the receiving end of a synthetic proposition.
>the concept of bachelor is not amplified, it is merely assigning and fixing a variable to a constant
"Amplified" is a vague word that doesn't capture what it means for something to be analytic or synthetic. All a synthetic statement means is that something "additional" occurs to prevent a proposition from being a tautology. It can be an amplification, intensification, complication, magnification, connection, conglomeration, subtraction, etc.

[Anonymous No.23376985]

>>23376918
It's literally not what's happening because 'bachelor' does not refer to any concept until it is IDENTIFIED with one through definition. There is not a joining between two concepts but a joining between an intuition (auditory pattern) and the concept of unmarried male. Synthetic judgments and definitions are not the same.

[Anonymous No.23377049]

>>23376985
>There is not a joining between two concepts but a joining between an intuition (auditory pattern) and the concept of unmarried male.
That's actually an interesting complication. But I'll raise you another one. It's a joining between the meaning associated with the intuition (auditory pattern), which is a concept, and the concept of an unmarried male. It's just that, previously, the concept was a null or empty concept, and it is now being given the content which is a reference to the world.
>It's literally not what's happening because 'bachelor' does not refer to any concept until it is IDENTIFIED with one through definition.
Also, keep in mind that there are two cases to consider here: 1) the first time "bachelor" is defined in some way to mean "unmarried man"; and 2) any time somebody learns what "bachelor" means after it already exists in practice. The second instance is obviously an a posteriori synthetic proposition because it refers to facts about the world and brings something new to the table, so to speak. I think you're trying to argue about the first case while ignoring the second case which more readily shows the problem with calling the proposition "a priori analytic."