The Analytic:Synthetic Distinction

[@hippodino4965]

the most understandable explanation about Quine s concern.

[@harrisonroman8264]

Professor you are tearing it up! Way to just dunk it every damn day. Thank you for being a real philosopher and teaching so many people. I would consider you an honesttagoodness intellectual for your dedication to the work, understanding the art and illuminating it.

[@grantivie]

Appreciate all of your videos so much. I listen to them every day while I cook breakfast lunch and dinner. Seriously thank you so much.

[@dantheman6008]

Great video. Thanks for posting.

[@preetisingh9362]

Thank you so much sir. Please teach me this topic Quine and StrawsonCritique of Empiricism; Theory of Basic Particulars and Persons

[@rafaelhamamoto4167]

Hello Mr.Bonevac , thank you so much to provide your lectures on the internet. I am a medical student in South America and your classes have a huge impact in my views of american culture and philosophy. Still have some regards about some videos of your support on Trump, but over all thank you again and good luck in future projects, hope you reach many more people with your work.

[@honestexpression6393]

Immediately subscribed. Was recommended a much older video of yours

[@PrajaktaT24]

Hello Professor, I am deeply grateful for your video lectures. Thank you so much! I have a question: I haven't understood how David Hume has proven the absence of necessity of causal relationship between cause and effect? Could you please recommend some reading to clarify this or perhaps, give some insights on this doubt? (Any inputs from anyone would be highly appreciated.)

[@Leandro-cj8qb]

Hi professor Bonevac, excelent video as one of your own. Latelly, could you get into the discussion of McDowell's Mind and World appendices about Quine's? Greetings from Brasil

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

Great suggestion!

[@MrXenon-hn7ju]

THANK YOU! We ballin boiiiiiiii! SKRT SKRT! Translation: You're a kind man :)

[@goziennaanamelechi3108]

Love your videos. But I've got a question on philosophy pls

[@stoodmars]

Great video. What’s the into song used?

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

That's the band I play in, doing John Coltrane's "After the Rain." You're hearing a snippet of Rich Harney's improvised solo piano verse.

[@stoodmars]

Daniel Bonevac Thanks for getting back to me. I’ve just had a listen to the song in its entirety - wonderful stuff!

[@matthijs4661]

Nice bird picture!

[@goziennaanamelechi3108]

What are the analytic distinction and arguments against Logical Empiricism by W V O Quine

[@CIVIAN]

Dear professor Bonevac, I have a great interest in the different philosophical(including religious) schools and was wondering if you could maybe produce a series of videos in which you outline them each with their central claims and important implications and then proceed to give the best arguments in favor of that school as well as the greatest challenges it faces as well as how those challenges have been met by proponents of the school. I realize this would probably turn out to be a long series of videos but judging from your previous projects you appear to enjoy these kinds of projects:D If you end up making it I will definitely watch it!

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

Excellent idea! I've taught courses like this with Steve Phillips.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

2:00 There is no such thing as a truth that doesn't tell us anything about the world. All truths are about the world and all things that exist can lead to more truth.

[@gabrieladelmann9307]

Two questions come to mind; 1. As I (perhaps naively) understand it, science is an endeavor to know the world. If analytic statements convey no information at all about the world, why do we even bother studying them (other than perhaps as a footnote), and how can it be that the collapse of the analytic/synthetic distinction led to the demise of logical empiricism, which, in its day, was advocated by very clever people indeed? Why was this distinction so important to them? 2. "Red all over" means "red to the exclusion of any other color, on the entirety of the visible surface of the object". Object O is r and there is no part of O which is non-r. Being green all over would violate the second clause in the conjunction above. Why is this problematic?

[@TheGemsbok]

I know your comment is very old, but just to offer you some quick clarity on the second question in case you're still interested: it's not important whether something can actually be both 'red all over' and 'green all over.' The question being raised there was simply whether the sentence 'Nothing can be both red and green all over' would be an analytic statement or a synthetic statement.

[@horsymandias-ur]

@@TheGemsbokI took the original post to be putting forth the suggestion that the statement “Nothing is both red and green all over” is uncontroversially an analytic statement

[@TheGemsbok]

@@horsymandias-ur If, by 'original post,' you mean the first comment in this thread---then that doesn't seem to be the case, no. But if, by 'original post,' you mean the video---then yes, I agree. I simply framed it as a discussion of its status in my previous comment.

[@talia0734]

we want to subtitle for your videos mr.

[@PhiloofAlexandria]

Tell me more!

[@talia0734]

i'm from turkey and i like your expressions but i can 't understand your some philosphical terms. if you open yours video contribition people can add english subtitle.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

"Analytic" truths don't exist with "synthetic" truths. A bachelor is a man, so you need to know what a man is, which is done ultimately by the senses. What kind of man? An unmarried kind. What is marriage? An religious or legal arrangement between a couple. Arrangement and couple and wedding are learned by the senses. To learn what a word means typically means that the person has experienced these things with their senses. An alien arriving on earth has no clue what a bachelor is until he monitors our species long enough to see we are pair bonding creatures and some men and some women don't pair bond and can be classified by a concept. There is no such thing as analytic and synthetic truths, there are just objects and our knowledge of them

[@ExistenceUniversity]

7:00 Yeah exactly, you cannot even take "analytic-synthetic" one step over without losing it's meaning. This is evidence that it's not true to have this two types. It's utter nonsense. Bachelors are unmarried men requires you know men are rational animals that pair bond for life, and that man has systems of organization to be able to track who is and isn't married and ceremonies to celebrate such events. The concept "Bachelor" brings with it all of human interactions and evolution and the rest of the universe follows.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

12:00 What do you mean? You teach academic philosophy, you always say nonsense, why start caring now? I honestly cannot believe grown adults struggle with this so much, its 100% identical to flat earth or young earth creationism, all reality is gone and these people just spinning their wheels wondering if wondering counts as wondering.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Just stop and think about how you learned words in the first place, did you know bachelor before you knew married? No! That makes no sense, so why as an adult pretend we know bachelor by the meaning, when we actually first learned about marriage and then classified people between married and non-married then learned a word to describe a male who is unmarried. So as an adult saying " bachelor" means a whole world of facts about reality.

[@marknikovvelesky2960]

Please speak slow 🙏