Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Challenge: Explain Analyticity*

ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 5:34:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Explain analyticity without circularly referring to an assumed understanding of analyticity.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 9:31:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 5:34:53 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Explain analyticity without circularly referring to an assumed understanding of analyticity.

I think of analyticity as being where a concept shows its relation to another concept without the need for further investigation. If I already know, in thinking of the word 'bachelor', its relation to the word 'married', then I don't need to investigate at all regarding the nature of bachelors in order to make that judgement. An analytic judgement basically just connects the pieces synthesized by our experiences which follow from intuitions (like, immediate experience). This is from my limited knowledge of Kant so I'm not certain.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 1:28:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 9:31:08 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/17/2015 5:34:53 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Explain analyticity without circularly referring to an assumed understanding of analyticity.

I think of analyticity as being where a concept shows its relation to another concept without the need for further investigation.
Sure, that's the traditional definition, but what *actually distinguishes* these propositions from others? Why are they related in this way?
If I already know, in thinking of the word 'bachelor', its relation to the word 'married', then I don't need to investigate at all regarding the nature of bachelors in order to make that judgement.
What makes the connection between "bachelor" and "unmarried" any different than the connection between "blue" and "car" when I say "My car is blue" (a synthetic proposition)? In other words, what establishes this analiticity?
An analytic judgement basically just connects the pieces synthesized by our experiences which follow from intuitions (like, immediate experience). This is from my limited knowledge of Kant so I'm not certain.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 1:39:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 1:28:06 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/17/2015 9:31:08 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/17/2015 5:34:53 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Explain analyticity without circularly referring to an assumed understanding of analyticity.

I think of analyticity as being where a concept shows its relation to another concept without the need for further investigation.
Sure, that's the traditional definition, but what *actually distinguishes* these propositions from others? Why are they related in this way?
If I already know, in thinking of the word 'bachelor', its relation to the word 'married', then I don't need to investigate at all regarding the nature of bachelors in order to make that judgement.
What makes the connection between "bachelor" and "unmarried" any different than the connection between "blue" and "car" when I say "My car is blue" (a synthetic proposition)? In other words, what establishes this analiticity?

If I said "There's a car outside" (and you couldn't see it yet, but assumed I'm telling the truth) then you'd need to investigate further in order to find out if it's blue. If I said "There's a bachelor outside" then you could assume that they're unmarried. The difference between the two relations (car --> blue / bachelor --> unmarried) is in the strength of their connection.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 2:07:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 1:39:18 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/17/2015 1:28:06 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/17/2015 9:31:08 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 9/17/2015 5:34:53 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Explain analyticity without circularly referring to an assumed understanding of analyticity.

I think of analyticity as being where a concept shows its relation to another concept without the need for further investigation.
Sure, that's the traditional definition, but what *actually distinguishes* these propositions from others? Why are they related in this way?
If I already know, in thinking of the word 'bachelor', its relation to the word 'married', then I don't need to investigate at all regarding the nature of bachelors in order to make that judgement.
What makes the connection between "bachelor" and "unmarried" any different than the connection between "blue" and "car" when I say "My car is blue" (a synthetic proposition)? In other words, what establishes this analiticity?

If I said "There's a car outside" (and you couldn't see it yet, but assumed I'm telling the truth) then you'd need to investigate further in order to find out if it's blue. If I said "There's a bachelor outside" then you could assume that they're unmarried. The difference between the two relations (car --> blue / bachelor --> unmarried) is in the strength of their connection.

But what quality of the terms makes "bachelor" and "unmarried man" equivalent? Surely there must be something that makes analytic statements analytic besides it just being so.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 3:52:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 5:34:53 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Explain analyticity without circularly referring to an assumed understanding of analyticity.

A statement is the content of a sentence that affirms or denies something and can only be true or false.
Analytic statements are true by definition, the predicate concept is contained in the subject.
"All bachelors are unmarried men" is true because "is unmarried" is contained in the definition of "bachelor".

What circularity do you have in mind?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 7:49:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 3:52:20 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/17/2015 5:34:53 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Explain analyticity without circularly referring to an assumed understanding of analyticity.

A statement is the content of a sentence that affirms or denies something and can only be true or false.
Analytic statements are true by definition, the predicate concept is contained in the subject.
"All bachelors are unmarried men" is true because "is unmarried" is contained in the definition of "bachelor".
How can you establish that "is unmarried" is contained within "bachelor"? The fact that you can distinguish between the case of "is unmarried" and "bachelor" and the case of, say, "is blue" and "my car" shows that there must be qualitative differences between the two classes of statements. What is this difference?
What circularity do you have in mind?

Mainly that understanding analyticity requires an understanding of synonymy, which, itself, relies on the concepts of necessity and analyticity.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 2:14:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Bump?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 5:53:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 7:49:30 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/17/2015 3:52:20 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/17/2015 5:34:53 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Explain analyticity without circularly referring to an assumed understanding of analyticity.

A statement is the content of a sentence that affirms or denies something and can only be true or false.
Analytic statements are true by definition, the predicate concept is contained in the subject.
"All bachelors are unmarried men" is true because "is unmarried" is contained in the definition of "bachelor".
How can you establish that "is unmarried" is contained within "bachelor"? The fact that you can distinguish between the case of "is unmarried" and "bachelor" and the case of, say, "is blue" and "my car" shows that there must be qualitative differences between the two classes of statements. What is this difference?

But if "your car" is defined as blue, then it's on the same level as bachelor and "is unmarried".

"car" by itself is different.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 3:02:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 7:49:30 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/17/2015 3:52:20 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/17/2015 5:34:53 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Explain analyticity without circularly referring to an assumed understanding of analyticity.

A statement is the content of a sentence that affirms or denies something and can only be true or false.
Analytic statements are true by definition, the predicate concept is contained in the subject.
"All bachelors are unmarried men" is true because "is unmarried" is contained in the definition of "bachelor".
How can you establish that "is unmarried" is contained within "bachelor"?
Because it is contained in the definition of bachelor.

The fact that you can distinguish between the case of "is unmarried" and "bachelor" and the case of, say, "is blue" and "my car" shows that there must be qualitative differences between the two classes of statements. What is this difference?
"My" indicates indexicals. The set of things which fulfills the condition "is a car & is currently owned by Shab" does not make any claim abut color.
The set containing all bachelors, on the other hand, contains all things fulfilling the condition "is unmarried & is male"

What circularity do you have in mind?

Mainly that understanding analyticity requires an understanding of synonymy, which, itself, relies on the concepts of necessity and analyticity.

X is an analytic statement, if and only if, the predicate concept in X is contained in the subject of X.
This is the definition of analyticity put in a more formal form. Definitions are equivalence relations, that means if you understand one side, you can understand the other. This has nothing to do with circularity, this is how definitions work.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2015 7:27:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 1:28:06 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
What makes the connection between "bachelor" and "unmarried" any different than the connection between "blue" and "car" when I say "My car is blue" (a synthetic proposition)? In other words, what establishes this analiticity?

It's not really "established". We simply choose to assign to the word "bachelor" a meaning that includes certain characteristics, one of them being "unmarried" We don't have to do that, but then we would have to choose a new linguistic placeholder for the concept "unmarried man".
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 4:40:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 5:53:55 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/17/2015 7:49:30 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/17/2015 3:52:20 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/17/2015 5:34:53 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Explain analyticity without circularly referring to an assumed understanding of analyticity.

A statement is the content of a sentence that affirms or denies something and can only be true or false.
Analytic statements are true by definition, the predicate concept is contained in the subject.
"All bachelors are unmarried men" is true because "is unmarried" is contained in the definition of "bachelor".
How can you establish that "is unmarried" is contained within "bachelor"? The fact that you can distinguish between the case of "is unmarried" and "bachelor" and the case of, say, "is blue" and "my car" shows that there must be qualitative differences between the two classes of statements. What is this difference?

But if "your car" is defined as blue, then it's on the same level as bachelor and "is unmarried".

"car" by itself is different.

Are you saying that "my car is blue" is analytic if "my car" really is "blue"? That seems contrary to most definitions of synthetic propositions.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 4:56:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 3:02:52 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/17/2015 7:49:30 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/17/2015 3:52:20 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/17/2015 5:34:53 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Explain analyticity without circularly referring to an assumed understanding of analyticity.

A statement is the content of a sentence that affirms or denies something and can only be true or false.
Analytic statements are true by definition, the predicate concept is contained in the subject.
"All bachelors are unmarried men" is true because "is unmarried" is contained in the definition of "bachelor".
How can you establish that "is unmarried" is contained within "bachelor"?
Because it is contained in the definition of bachelor.
So "is unmarried" is contained within "bachelor" because "is married" is contained within "bachelor"? How is that not completely circular?
The fact that you can distinguish between the case of "is unmarried" and "bachelor" and the case of, say, "is blue" and "my car" shows that there must be qualitative differences between the two classes of statements. What is this difference?
"My" indicates indexicals. The set of things which fulfills the condition "is a car & is currently owned by Shab" does not make any claim abut color.
The set containing all bachelors, on the other hand, contains all things fulfilling the condition "is unmarried & is male"

Assuming that my car is blue, doesn't the set containing "my car" contain only things which are blue, in my possession, and a car? If my car is blue, then "my car" cannot refer to "a red car". What's the difference?

If the argument is that "my car" could refer to "a red car in my possession" without contradiction, while "bachelor" can never refer to "a married man", how can you establish this without already knowing what analyticity is?

Would the argument not be that "bachelors are necessarily unmarried" vs "my car is contingently blue"? How do you explain "necessity" without essentially saying "that which is necessary is analytic"? If you can't, you're essentially saying that a statement is analytic when it's necessarily true, and it's necessarily true when it's analytic, which has no explanatory power.
What circularity do you have in mind?

Mainly that understanding analyticity requires an understanding of synonymy, which, itself, relies on the concepts of necessity and analyticity.

X is an analytic statement, if and only if, the predicate concept in X is contained in the subject of X.
This is the definition of analyticity put in a more formal form. Definitions are equivalence relations, that means if you understand one side, you can understand the other. This has nothing to do with circularity, this is how definitions work.

See the above.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:04:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 7:27:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/17/2015 1:28:06 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
What makes the connection between "bachelor" and "unmarried" any different than the connection between "blue" and "car" when I say "My car is blue" (a synthetic proposition)? In other words, what establishes this analiticity?

It's not really "established". We simply choose to assign to the word "bachelor" a meaning that includes certain characteristics, one of them being "unmarried" We don't have to do that, but then we would have to choose a new linguistic placeholder for the concept "unmarried man".

Quoting Quine:

But how do we find that 'bachelor' is defined as 'unmarried man'? Who defined it thus, and when? Are we to appeal to the nearest dictionary, and accept the lexicographer's formulation as law? Clearly this would be to put the cart before the horse. The lexicographer is an empirical scientist, whose business is the recording of antecedent facts; and if he glosses 'bachelor' as 'unmarried man' it is because of his belief that there is a relation of synonymy between these forms, implicit in general or preferred usage prior to his own work. The notion of synonymy presupposed here has still to be clarified, presumably in terms relating to linguistic behavior. Certainly the "definition" which is the lexicographer's report of an observed synonymy cannot be taken
as the ground of the synonymy. Definition is not, indeed, an activity exclusively of philologists.

Philosophers and scientists frequently have occasion to "define" a recondite term by paraphrasing it into terms of a more familiar vocabulary. But ordinarily such a definition, like the philologist's, is pure lexicography, affirming a relationship of synonymy antecedent to the exposition in hand.

Just what it means to affirm synonymy, just what the interconnections may be which are necessary and sufficient in order that two linguistic forms be properly describable as synonymous, is far from clear; but, whatever these interconnections may be, ordinarily they are grounded in usage. Definitions reporting selected instances of
synonymy come then as reports upon usage.

In formal and informal work alike, thus, we find that definition except in the extreme case of the explicitly conventional introduction of new notations - hinges on prior relationships of synonymy.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:06:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/21/2015 7:27:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/17/2015 1:28:06 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
What makes the connection between "bachelor" and "unmarried" any different than the connection between "blue" and "car" when I say "My car is blue" (a synthetic proposition)? In other words, what establishes this analiticity?

It's not really "established". We simply choose to assign to the word "bachelor" a meaning that includes certain characteristics, one of them being "unmarried" We don't have to do that, but then we would have to choose a new linguistic placeholder for the concept "unmarried man".

I mean, saying "we don't have to do that" is effectively saying "an analytic statement is not necessarily true", which is a contradiction in terms.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 6:18:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 4:40:45 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/21/2015 5:53:55 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/17/2015 7:49:30 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/17/2015 3:52:20 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/17/2015 5:34:53 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Explain analyticity without circularly referring to an assumed understanding of analyticity.

A statement is the content of a sentence that affirms or denies something and can only be true or false.
Analytic statements are true by definition, the predicate concept is contained in the subject.
"All bachelors are unmarried men" is true because "is unmarried" is contained in the definition of "bachelor".
How can you establish that "is unmarried" is contained within "bachelor"? The fact that you can distinguish between the case of "is unmarried" and "bachelor" and the case of, say, "is blue" and "my car" shows that there must be qualitative differences between the two classes of statements. What is this difference?

But if "your car" is defined as blue, then it's on the same level as bachelor and "is unmarried".

"car" by itself is different.

Are you saying that "my car is blue" is analytic if "my car" really is "blue"? That seems contrary to most definitions of synthetic propositions.

I'm saying that the difference between the two classes of statements is about definition. Bachelor is defined as unmarried. Obviously if "your car" was defined as blue, there would be no gap. But it isn't, which is where the gap is.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 6:20:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 6:18:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 4:40:45 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/21/2015 5:53:55 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/17/2015 7:49:30 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/17/2015 3:52:20 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/17/2015 5:34:53 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Explain analyticity without circularly referring to an assumed understanding of analyticity.

A statement is the content of a sentence that affirms or denies something and can only be true or false.
Analytic statements are true by definition, the predicate concept is contained in the subject.
"All bachelors are unmarried men" is true because "is unmarried" is contained in the definition of "bachelor".
How can you establish that "is unmarried" is contained within "bachelor"? The fact that you can distinguish between the case of "is unmarried" and "bachelor" and the case of, say, "is blue" and "my car" shows that there must be qualitative differences between the two classes of statements. What is this difference?

But if "your car" is defined as blue, then it's on the same level as bachelor and "is unmarried".

"car" by itself is different.

Are you saying that "my car is blue" is analytic if "my car" really is "blue"? That seems contrary to most definitions of synthetic propositions.

I'm saying that the difference between the two classes of statements is about definition. Bachelor is defined as unmarried. Obviously if "your car" was defined as blue, there would be no gap. But it isn't, which is where the gap is.

What does it mean for something to be "defined as" another? The extension of "my car" is "a blue car", just as the extension of "a bachelor" is "an unmarried man". What's the difference?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 6:26:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 4:56:36 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/21/2015 3:02:52 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/17/2015 7:49:30 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/17/2015 3:52:20 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/17/2015 5:34:53 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Explain analyticity without circularly referring to an assumed understanding of analyticity.

A statement is the content of a sentence that affirms or denies something and can only be true or false.
Analytic statements are true by definition, the predicate concept is contained in the subject.
"All bachelors are unmarried men" is true because "is unmarried" is contained in the definition of "bachelor".
How can you establish that "is unmarried" is contained within "bachelor"?
Because it is contained in the definition of bachelor.
So "is unmarried" is contained within "bachelor" because "is married" is contained within "bachelor"? How is that not completely circular?
Now, there are circular definitions. In those we would define, say, a car as "is an X, is a Y and is a car". These definitions are not helpful

What is a circular argument actually doing? A circular argument does not prove the truth of any statement, it proves they all (or some) have the same truth value.
Or in other words, a circular argument proves equivalence.

You are not complaining about analyticity, you are complaining about definitions.

The fact that you can distinguish between the case of "is unmarried" and "bachelor" and the case of, say, "is blue" and "my car" shows that there must be qualitative differences between the two classes of statements. What is this difference?
"My" indicates indexicals. The set of things which fulfills the condition "is a car & is currently owned by Shab" does not make any claim abut color.
The set containing all bachelors, on the other hand, contains all things fulfilling the condition "is unmarried & is male"

Assuming that my car is blue, doesn't the set containing "my car" contain only things which are blue, in my possession, and a car?
Yes, but being blue is not a condition to enter this set.

If my car is blue, then "my car" cannot refer to "a red car". What's the difference?
The red is not owned by you, is it? And if it is then "your car" is ambiguous as it refers to multiple entities.

If the argument is that "my car" could refer to "a red car in my possession" without contradiction, while "bachelor" can never refer to "a married man", how can you establish this without already knowing what analyticity is?
As I've said, "my" is an indexical. The meaning changes depending on by whom and when they are uttered.

Would the argument not be that "bachelors are necessarily unmarried" vs "my car is contingently blue"?
Wait, wait, wait. Do not confuse analyticity, apriority and necessity.

How do you explain "necessity" without essentially saying "that which is necessary is analytic"?
Necessary is metaphysics, analyticity is language. It is for the most part agreed on that what is necessary, is also analytic and a priori, but invoking the other to explain the first one is not helpful.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 6:28:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 6:20:02 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/24/2015 6:18:24 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 4:40:45 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/21/2015 5:53:55 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 9/17/2015 7:49:30 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/17/2015 3:52:20 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/17/2015 5:34:53 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Explain analyticity without circularly referring to an assumed understanding of analyticity.

A statement is the content of a sentence that affirms or denies something and can only be true or false.
Analytic statements are true by definition, the predicate concept is contained in the subject.
"All bachelors are unmarried men" is true because "is unmarried" is contained in the definition of "bachelor".
How can you establish that "is unmarried" is contained within "bachelor"? The fact that you can distinguish between the case of "is unmarried" and "bachelor" and the case of, say, "is blue" and "my car" shows that there must be qualitative differences between the two classes of statements. What is this difference?

But if "your car" is defined as blue, then it's on the same level as bachelor and "is unmarried".

"car" by itself is different.

Are you saying that "my car is blue" is analytic if "my car" really is "blue"? That seems contrary to most definitions of synthetic propositions.

I'm saying that the difference between the two classes of statements is about definition. Bachelor is defined as unmarried. Obviously if "your car" was defined as blue, there would be no gap. But it isn't, which is where the gap is.

What does it mean for something to be "defined as" another? The extension of "my car" is "a blue car", just as the extension of "a bachelor" is "an unmarried man". What's the difference?

A definition is when we assign a linkage between an idea and a name. It's not so much that the extension of "bachelor" is "unmarried man", it's more that they are exactly the same. Much like a mathematical equation wherein one can swap one side for another. We can swap one sequence of letters for another, and based on an implied understanding, convey the same meaning. Unless we agree to define "your car" as "blue car [plus other things]", we can't compare the two classes of statements. If we do define things that way, there is no difference. If we don't, the difference is we haven't agreed to make a linkage.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2015 5:34:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 5:06:18 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/21/2015 7:27:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/17/2015 1:28:06 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
What makes the connection between "bachelor" and "unmarried" any different than the connection between "blue" and "car" when I say "My car is blue" (a synthetic proposition)? In other words, what establishes this analiticity?

It's not really "established". We simply choose to assign to the word "bachelor" a meaning that includes certain characteristics, one of them being "unmarried" We don't have to do that, but then we would have to choose a new linguistic placeholder for the concept "unmarried man".

I mean, saying "we don't have to do that" is effectively saying "an analytic statement is not necessarily true", which is a contradiction in terms.

We only have to worry about preserving the truth of an analytic statement so long as the meaning of the words it contains implies truth. If we change the meaning of the words contained within an analytic statement, then we're no longer dealing with the same statement, and we don't have to worry about keeping it true.