On Mar 23, 5:30 pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:07:12 -0700 (PDT), Wolfgang
>
>
>
> <wolfgangcern...@[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 =3D 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=3D2 is in any case (perspective of
> >construction) a synthetic judgment. But he say this for 5+7=3D12
(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 pr=E4dicat
>
> 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 =BBtrue=AB or =BBfalse=AB like in logic,
but =
the
> >constructed number 12. After this it is possible to do this
> >=BBanalytic=AB, 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=3D12 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
Sorry, my motherlanguage is german, and I have to say, I read Kant in
original.
Its the historical argument from Bernard Bolzano (19. century) and
from Albert Grote (20. century).
With the described operation You never becomes 57. Read exactly! And
what i have said to analytic and synthetic judgements is the same as
Willard Quine do. Its a diffrence between "Ordinal"-number and
"Cardninal"-number! At first we count with ordinal-numbers like every
natural arithmetic before the greeks.Than we constructed "numbers"
with set-theory like Russell (extensional logik) or like Bolzano
(before he used the peano-definition as a short and useful form) and
Kant (after he deals with empirical roots) with grammar (intemnsional
logic).
Philosophy is a school not a chirch! Good morning! Wolfgang Cernoch
|
