[Wittrs] Re: Who denies the synthetic a priori?
- From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:30:46 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@> wrote:
>
> > Let me know if you think something doesn't go through.
>
> In this case it was because the original message by Josh was posted in a
> non-standard way so did not have a "Reply-To:" header. Replies went directly
> to Josh instead of to the board.
Oops, yes they did.
I posted via the Yahoo groups interface, fwiw.
So, the answer to my question seems to be that Carnap and the
classic "analytic philosophy" answer is that analytic = a priori
and synthetic = a posteriori, and that's that. Which is fine by me,
actually. But Rorty attributes this to "linguistic philosophers",
... OK, well, I guess "The Logical Syntax of Language" qualifies.
I didn't realize that's what Rorty might have been talking about.
Thanks.
Secondarily, that denying the analytic/synthetic distinction would
also qualify as "denying the synthetic a priori" since a fortiori
there is no synthetic! Well, OK. But then Quine wasn't the name
that sprung to mind, either, under the heading "linguistic
philosophers". Not to *my* mind, but perhaps to Rorty's?
Again, thanks.
Josh
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
