ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- This video introduces three distinctions of great importance in philosophy: necessary/contingent; analytic/synthetic; a priori/a posteriori. My goal here was simply to introduce the distinctions, so I've kept this very brief and nontechnical, and I don't examine in any great detail the arguments I present. You could devote hours to exploring just one of these distinctions, and you'd still have to skip important information.
13:10 - It may be thought that you could give a modern answer along similar lines by using evolution. So: humans are evolved creatures, and our minds have been shaped by evolution to know certain basic truths about the world. The problem here is that evolution is geared to survival and practicality, not truth. Evolution would dispose us to beliefs that help us survive and that help us navigate the world; there is no reason to suppose that these beliefs are true. Indeed, there is much evidence that many of our commonsense beliefs that may be useful to our everyday concerns are simply false; see the literature on folk physics.
16:20 - Note that this belief might be wrong. There are some experiments that suggest that, under certain special conditions, people can perceive a surface as being wholly coloured with two colours at the same time. Google 'impossible colours'. One such experiment is very simple: simply take, e.g., a blue square and a yellow square, then cross your eyes so the two squares overlap each other. I've tried this myself, and unfortunately I didn't see an 'impossible colour'. Rather, the surface seemed simply to flip back and forth between blue and yellow.
Anyway, if it's true that people can perceive impossible colours, then 'if x is blue all over, then x is not red all over' would indeed be synthetic... but also a posteriori, and false.
22:14 - The point here can be seen if we consider the distinction between de dicto and de re statements, which I explain in this video at 9:30 : • Quine's objections to ...
Interpreted de re, 'the inventor of the zip invented the zip' is contingent - but a posteriori. De dicto, it's necessary, and a priori. Since the name 'Julius' abbreviates 'the inventor of the zip', 'Julius invented the zip' should be interpreted exactly as is 'the inventor of the zip invented the zip'. So we may apply precisely the same analysis here: read de re, it's contingent a posteriori; read de dicto, it's necessary a priori. But of course, all this ignores that troublesome thicket of rigid designation...
![Rick Roderick on Heidegger - The Rejection of Humanism [full length]](/img/n.gif)
Hello Kane, big fan of your work here, just wanted to put in my two cents:
Kripke's example of necessary a posteriori propositions seemed a bit iffy to me. It seemed as if by claiming it is *necessary* that gold has an atomic number of 79, that he is demanding that gold is (at least partly) defined as having the atomic number of 79. Surely before humans had the idea of what atomic numbers even were, they had a specific way to define and/or identify gold that differed from that. Their standard could have been something that has metallic qualities, doesn’t shatter when struck with a hammer, and has a distinct color. Though when you take a look at Kripke’s example, he claims that even if something doesn’t look like gold, or have the aforementioned qualities of gold, but has an atomic number of 79, then it is gold. This seems to be to be saying that what is gold is defined in terms of atomic numbers, which in turn would not really require experience outside of the experience required to come up with the concept of atomic numbers, hence it being a priori.
Keep up the great work, thanks!
I had a thought on the Kripke example of necessary a posteriori propositions. One thing that struck me is that in this example we say that some particular object has to have the atomic number 79 to be gold. It is indeed necessary. But this is due to the fact that we have a particular model of reality which describes elements in terms of its atomic number. Now my thought was this: In our description of the elements, a particular object which is supposed to be gold must have the property of "having an atomic number of 79" ( lets call this property A), but if we assume that there is in fact another intelligent being in an other part of our universe that has a model which describes gold differently, but generates the same predictions (lets call this property B), then which one of these descriptions is the essential one?
So is it metaphysically necessary for gold to be described in terms of description A or B, If we in particular assume that both A and B generates the same physical predictions?
I might be totally confused on the meaning of something being necessary. Could it be that both A and B are essential for an object to be gold, so that in Kripkes example I could have inserted description B instead of A="having the atomic number 79" because they both are in some way equivalent?
I don't think analytic is concerned with the words that describe the atomic number 79. Analytic is concerned with the meaning of the atomic number 79, since arithmetic appears to be universal even if aliens developed a different system of numbers the consecutive nature of quantities seems to be a fundamental property of possible worlds, therefore property A and B are the same analytically and so the atomic number 79 remains an essential property of the subject (gold). Thats my guess.
You are an excellent teacher!
The video was a helpful summary 👍 as you would expect with philosophy I am not in agreement with all the definitions and reasoning but it did outline the concepts adequately
Thanks a lot for these videos!
Actually by "analytic prior" we mean it is true by definition, and by "prior" we means it is true by logical reasoning without experiment. And also in analytic there is no new information is added. By posterior we mean we get statement as true after empirical evidence. But it is not universal. But in "synthetic a prior" there is new information added through logical reasoning without experiment. In 12x14= 168 one has to calculate it, as multiplication is a repeated addition (i.e by applying reasoning ) to reach to the answer. Here you are not experiencing while reasoning. Reasoning is something you do in your head. But when see a white board you see or experience the white board through your sense organ. And this experience can vary from person to person. But experiencing through logical reasoning is universal. It is true for all.
I think it would be better if you presented your beliefs as a thought and not a truth. Your descriptions appear to be loosely defined and don't resemble what was meant by synthetic and analytic as introduced in Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant. I think modern philosophy have too heavily conflated language with pure meaning and if you check my response to someone else's question you'll see what I mean. Always ask questions, that includes questioning your own arguments and clarifying before asserting.
@@attackman4458 I'm not giving the explanation on Kant's thought. Whatever i said is a general description on analytic and synthetic through my understanding. If you don't agree with my explanations then better share your understanding explicitly so that we can sort out our misconceptions, and come to common terms.
Ins't the case the your example of Synthetic a priori is in fact a Analytic a posteriori? It seems to me more plausible that 12 x 14 = 168 is Analytic coz it is true by definition but is a posteriori coz I have to experience the calculation to find it out. I can't find out just by thinking unless someone is really good at math. And, even if someone can, what about bigger numbers like (9872 x 9032) ? You need experience (calculating) to find out the result. It is not self evident, thus a posteriori, but it is still true in virtue of the definition of each individual number, thus analytic. Am I wrong?
Actually by "analytic prior" we mean it is true by definition, and by "prior" we means it is true by logical reasoning without experiment. And also in analytic there is no new information we get. By posterior we mean we get statement as true after empirical evidence. But it is not universal. But in "synthetic a prior" there is new information added through logical reasoning without experiment. 12x14= 168 you have to calculate it, as multiplication is a repeated addition (i.e by applying reasoning ) to reach to the answer. Here you are not experiencing while reasoning. Reasoning is something you do in your head. But when see a white board you see or experience the white board through your sense organ. And this experience can vary from person to person. But logical reasoning is universal. It is true for all.
I can't even begin to imagine living in a mind that would write this, maybe when i was between 5 and 12... actually I was pretty opinionated at 15 but now I'm waiting for anything that I can believe entirely.
Your videos are really great, thanks!
very helpful and informative. Much appreciation
The notion of analytic a priori, is one of the biggest myths in philosophy, because once a premise contained within a statement is realized, the conclusion can no longer be a priori. Synthetic a priori (as intution), is closer to being baseless, but that still falls short. The only true form of a priori is sensual information.
thank you
23:05
I wish you'd do someday.