ANSWER

Synthetic vs. Analytic Propositions:

1. Synthetic Propositions: Synthetic propositions are statements in which the predicate concept is not already contained within the subject concept. In other words, the truth or falsity of synthetic propositions is determined by empirical evidence and cannot be known solely through the analysis of concepts or language. They expand our knowledge of the world by adding new information. An example of a synthetic proposition is “The cat is on the mat.” In this statement, the concept of “cat” and “mat” are not inherently connected, and we need to observe the real world to confirm or refute it.
2. Analytic Propositions: Analytic propositions, on the other hand, are statements in which the predicate concept is already contained within the subject concept. They are true by definition or tautological, and their truth can be known through the analysis of the meaning of the terms involved without needing to refer to empirical evidence. An example of an analytic proposition is “All bachelors are unmarried.” Here, the concept of “bachelor” already includes the idea of being unmarried, so the statement is true by definition.

A Priori vs. A Posteriori Knowledge:

1. A Priori Knowledge: A priori knowledge is knowledge that is independent of experience. It is based on reason, deduction, or pure thought, and it can be known to be true or false without the need for empirical observation. Mathematical and logical truths are classic examples of a priori knowledge because they are true by definition and do not require empirical testing.
2. A Posteriori Knowledge: A posteriori knowledge, on the other hand, is knowledge that is derived from experience or empirical observation. It relies on sensory perception and experimentation to establish its truth or falsity. Scientific facts and most everyday observations fall under the category of a posteriori knowledge because they are contingent on our interaction with the world.

Principle Behind Analytic Judgments: Analytic judgments are grounded in the principle of identity, which states that whatever is affirmed in the predicate is already contained within the subject. In other words, the truth of an analytic judgment is established by examining the meanings of the terms involved. Kant, for instance, argued that analytic judgments are a priori because they are true by virtue of the concepts’ definitions, and they don’t depend on empirical observations.

Hume’s View on Synthetic Judgments: Hume believed that all synthetic judgments rely on a principle he called “the principle of the uniformity of nature.” According to Hume, we make inductive inferences about the world based on our past experiences, assuming that the future will resemble the past. This means that all our knowledge about matters of fact, which are synthetic propositions, is based on this principle. For example, if we say “The sun will rise tomorrow,” we are making a synthetic judgment based on our past observations of the sun rising every day.

A question that arises from this discussion: How do philosophers address the challenges posed by skepticism regarding synthetic judgments, especially when they rely on induction and the assumption of the uniformity of nature?

QUESTION

Description