Modal Truths from an Analytic-Synthetic Kantian Distinction
نویسنده
چکیده
In the article of 1965 Are logical truths analytic? Hintikka deals with the problem of establishing whether the logical truths of first-order logic are analytic or synthetic. In order to provide an answer to this issue, Hintikka firstly distinguishes two different notions of analyticity, and then he shows that the sentences of first-order logic are analytic in one sense, but synthetic in another. This interesting result clearly illustrates the non-triviality of the question. In this paper we aim at answering the question Are modal truths analytic? In order to elaborate a satisfactory answer to this question, we will follow the strategy of Hintikka and we will exploit some recent results on the proof theory for modal logic. Finally, our conclusions will shed new lights on the links between first-order logic and modal logic.
منابع مشابه
PUTNAM VERSUS QUINE ON REVISABILITY AND THE ANALYTIC – SYNTHETIC DISTINCTION 1 Axel Mueller
In the following, I want to revisit the criticism of the analytic–synthetic distinction brought forth in Putnam’s “The Analytic and the Synthetic” and later writings and compare it with Quine’s familiar attack on the same distinction in the last two sections of “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. My purpose in this comparison will be to find the features of Putnam’s argument that prepare the ground for...
متن کاملAlternative Conceptual Schemes and a Non-Kantian Scheme-Content Dualism
D. Davidson argues that the existence of alternative conceptual schemes presupposes the Kantian scheme-content dualism, which requires a scheme-neutral empirical content and a fixed, sharp scheme-content distinction. The dismantlement of such a Kantian schemecontent dualism, which Davidson calls “the third dogma of empiricism”, would render the notion of alternative conceptual schemes groundles...
متن کاملXiv*—should We Trust Our Intuitions? Deflationary Accounts of the Analytic Data
At least since W. V. O. Quine’s famous critique of the analytic synthetic distinction, philosophers have been deeply divided over whether there are any analytic truths. One line of thought suggests that the simple fact that people have ‘intuitions of analyticity’ might provide an independent argument for analyticities. If defenders of analyticity can explain these intuitions and opponents canno...
متن کاملA Defense of Contingent Logical Truths∗
A formula is a contingent logical truth when it is true in every model M but, for some model M , false at some world of M . We argue that there are such truths, given the logic of actuality. Our argument turns on defending Tarski’s definition of truth and logical truth, extended so as to apply to modal languages with an actuality operator. We argue that this extension is the philosophically pro...
متن کاملTranscendental syntax I: deterministic case
We study logic in the light of the Kantian distinction between analytic (untyped, meaningless, locative) answers and synthetic (typed, meaningful, spiritual) questions. Which is specially relevant to proof-theory: in a proof-net, the upper part is locative, whereas the lower part is spititual: a posteriori (explicit) as far as correctness is concerned, a priori (implicit) for questions dealing ...
متن کامل