On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Wolfgang Cernoch
<wolfgangcernoch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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 = 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
>
>
>
>Sorry, my motherlanguage is german, and I have to say, I read Kant in
>original.
Terrible. English is the best.
>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!
I did "read exactly." You said that putting two numbers together to
give one number is different from getting two numbers. Then I replied
that there is also a difference between the 12 and the number 57. You
can't seem to explain why adding 5 to 7 doesn't give one number, 57.
> 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).
We don't need Peano to add numbers, we just add 5 to 7. But why can't
it give 57 instead of 12?
>Philosophy is a school not a chirch! Good morning! Wolfgang Cernoch
Then how was school this morning? Did you do your homework?
|
