On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:07:12 -0700 (PDT), Wolfgang
<wolfgangcernoch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 18 Feb., 10:19, "Phil Roberts, Jr." <phil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> It has been many years since I've read the Critique of Pure
>> Reason, and perhaps I am misrembering, but I was always
>> perplexed by Kant's insistence that 1 + 1 = 2 is a
>> synthetic proposition. If an analytic proposition is
>> simply one that is true by denfintion, e.g.,
>> all unmarried men are bachelors, wouldn't 1 plus 1
>> equals 2 be in this category as well?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Phil Roberts, Jr.http://www.rationology.net
>>
>> .
>
>Kant don't say, that 1+1=2 is in any case (perspective of
>construction) a synthetic judgment. But he say this for 5+7=12 (Axiome
>der Anschauung), and this is in any perspective of construction a
>synthtecic judgment, because there is a difference between putting
>two numbers together (this give us two elements)
Or one element, the number 57.
>or to add the number
>5 and the number 7: the second operation give us 12 elements. I think,
>it means, that in arithmetic is not possible to think about the number
>7 as an prädicat
That's 'a predicate' in English.
>of a subject, called number 5, its have to be a
>conclusio. But its possible to think about 5+7 as two sentences, and
>the relation between is not »true« or »false« like in logic, but the
>constructed number 12. After this it is possible to do this
>»analytic«, because we need the rule, not the cause of the rule.
That was obscure. But let's just say that constructing the answer to
the problem 5+7 is by synthesis, while 'tearing down' the answer 12 in
to its elements is done by analysis.
So to say that 5+7=12 is an analytical proposition would be begging
the question, which in this case involves assuming the answer 12 (as
"obviously true") before proving it. This is why Kant stated that
using a much larger arithmetic problem takes away the obviousness of
the solution along with its apparent analyticity.
--
How was chirch this morning? - Michael Gordge
|
