/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22419312]

>The proper problem upon which all depends, when expressed with scholastic precision, is therefore:

>How are synthetic propositions a priori possible?

>Metaphysics stands or falls with the solution of this problem: its very existence depends upon it. Let any one make metaphysical assertions with ever so much plausibility, let him overwhelm us with conclusions, if he has not previously proved able to answer this question satisfactorily, I have a right to say this is all vain baseless philosophy and false wisdom.
unfathomably based

[Anonymous No.22419338]

>>22419312
Some bodies are heavy.

[Anonymous No.22419345]

>>22419312
Indeed, the indomitable Joseph de Maistre, an exemplar of philosophical acumen, elucidates a profound quandary that traverses the landscape of synthetic propositions a priori. His incisive inquiry pertains to the very bedrock upon which metaphysics stands or stumbles—a conundrum that is far from facile. It is, in essence, a litmus test, a crucible that strains the authenticity of metaphysical assertions and their justifications.

Maistre's astute proposition underscores the exigency of establishing a foundational framework for synthetic propositions a priori—an endeavor that, if unattended or inadequately addressed, casts a pall of vacuousness upon the edifice of philosophical discourse. The sagacity of his insight is predicated upon the notion that metaphysics, the very vanguard of philosophical inquiry, hinges upon the resolution of this enigmatic predicament.

In these profound pronouncements, one discerns a clarion call to intellectual rigor and epistemological integrity. Maistre's assertion serves as a solemn reminder that philosophical endeavors, no matter how eloquent or captivating, must grapple with the crux of their foundational premises. To remain unswervingly grounded within the terrain of profound inquiry, one must not merely proliferate conclusions, but substantiate them upon the bedrock of a rigorous solution to the problem he so perspicaciously enunciates.

[Anonymous No.22419350]

>>22419338
>synthetic a posteriori judgment
ngmi

[Anonymous No.22419379]

>>22419312
>How are synthetic propositions a priori possible?
They're not 100% provable, but by a combination of Jamesean pragmatism and Bayesian probability we can assume them likely as a useful starting point for further reasoning.

[Anonymous No.22419392]

>>22419338
It is generally understood that things like physics and math are synthetic a priori since we can know them before experiencing them, your statement is a posteriori since it can really only be known from experience or understanding gained after the fact.

[Anonymous No.22419394]

>>22419379
>Jamesean pragmatism and Bayesian probability
btfo by Kant
>it is a necessary condition of every cognition that is to be established upon a priori grounds that it shall be held to be absolutely necessary; much more is this the case with an attempt to determine all pure a priori cognition, and to furnish the standard—and consequently an example-of all apodeictic (philosophical) certitude.

[Anonymous No.22419413]

>>22419379
They actually are probable, you just have to show that they're conditions of possibility for our own experience. Kant might have many issues, but this is one of those things he got right

[Anonymous No.22419414]

>>22419392
>things like physics and math are synthetic a priori since we can know them before experiencing them
lmao

[Anonymous No.22419427]

>>22419414
^this nigga has to check out everytime wethet 2+2 still equals 4. "Maybe this time it will be 5", he says

[Anonymous No.22419450]

>>22419414
You can attempt to make it a probability argument and that is fine, at 100% probability it then by definition becomes certainty.

[Anonymous No.22419458]

>>22419414
btfo by Kant (once again)
>The science of Natural Philosophy (Physics) contains in itself synthetical judgments a priori, as principles. I shall adduce two propositions. For instance, the proposition, “in all changes of the material world, the quantity of matter remains unchanged;” or, that, “in all communication of motion, action and re-action must always be equal.” In both of these, not only is the necessity, and therefore their origin a priori clear, but also that they are synthetical propositions.

[Anonymous No.22419793]

ALLES KLAR!

[Anonymous No.22420457]

>>22419350
>That only can be called science (wissenschaft) proper whose certainty is apodictic: cognition that can merely contain empirical certainty is only improperly called science.
empirical "science" BTFO

[Anonymous No.22420467]

>>22420457
>when the grounds or principles it contains are in the last resort merely empirical, as, for instance, in chemistry, and the laws from which the reason explains the given facts are merely empirical laws, they then carry no consciousness of their necessity with them (they are not apodictically certain), and thus the whole does not in strictness deserve the name of science; chemistry indeed should be rather termed systematic art than science.
GOT DAM.

[Anonymous No.22420678]

>read Kant
>realize the synthetic/analytic distinction is midwitted bullshit
>see that Kant's entire argument relies on that shitty distinction
>stop reading Kant
What a disappointment. Why do il/lit/erates worship this failure so much?

[Anonymous No.22420885]

>>22420678
Just reading this and seeing that your only takeaway from Kant was this one thing I know you did not actually read Kant. You are the illiterate who takes for granted he singlehandedly separated philosophy from religion. You missed the categorical imperative and so much more. I would dare say filtered bit that implies you read it which we both know you didn't. You could have just said you have grown weary about how often this particular topic is debated on lit which would have also been more moot than your actual comment. There are plenty of YA threads on lit for the sub midwit dipshits.

[Anonymous No.22421006]

>>22420678
>synthetic/analytic distinction is midwitted bullshit
.>t. didn't actually read the Two Dogmas to see how much of an absolute pseud Quine 'I don't need no History of Philosophy' was
ngmi

[Anonymous No.22421022]

>>22420678
>>22420885
many of you will get filtered, many of you may even be constitutionally incapable of understanding Kant

>should any reader find this plan, which I publish as the Prolegomena to any future Metaphysics, still obscure, let him consider that not every one is bound to study Metaphysics, that many minds will succeed very well, in the exact and even in deep sciences, more closely allied to intuition [what can be sensed], while they cannot succeed in investigations dealing exclusively with abstract concepts. In such cases men should apply their talents to other subjects.

But in the end success depends more on determation to achieve the goal and persistence in attaining than in innate ability. If you actually want to understand, you will.