David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Acta Analytica 24 (2):139-148 (2009)
Quine famously argued that analyticity is indefinable, since there is no good account of analyticity in terms of synonymy, and intensions are of no help since there are no intensions. Yet if there are intensions, the question still remains as to the right account of analyticity in terms of them. On the assumption that intensions must be admitted, the present paper considers two such accounts. The first analyzes analyticity in terms of concept identity, and the second analyzes analyticity in terms of the analysis relation. The first fails in light of possible counterexamples. The second is defended, both by considering test cases of intuitively clear analyticities, and by developing the account in light of possible counterexamples
|Keywords||Analyticity Analysis Intensions Concepts Conceptual analysis|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Willard V. O. Quine (1951). Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Philosophical Review 60 (1):20–43.
W. V. Quine (1976). The Ways of Paradox, and Other Essays. Harvard University Press.
Robert Hanna (2001). Kant and the Foundations of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
W. V. Quine (1951/1953). Main Trends in Recent Philosophy: Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Philosophical Review 60 (1):20--43.
Stewart Shapiro (2000). The Status of Logic. In Paul Boghossian & Christopher Peacocke (eds.), New Essays on the a Priori. Oxford University Press 333--338.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Åsa Maria Wikforss (2003). An a Posteriori Conception of Analyticity? Grazer Philosophische Studien 66 (1):119-139.
Richard Creath (1991). Every Dogma has its Day. Erkenntnis 35 (1-3):347-389.
Olaf Mueller (1998). Does the Quine/Duhem Thesis Prevent Us From Defining Analyticity? On Fallacy in Quine. Erkenntnis 48 (1):81 - 99.
Olaf Mueller (1998). Does the Quine/Duhem Thesis Prevent Us From Defining Analyticity? Erkenntnis 48 (1):85-104.
Gillian Kay Russell (2004). Analyticity, Meaning and Paradox. Dissertation, Princeton University
Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (2003). Should We Trust Our Intuitions? Deflationary Accounts of the Analytic Data. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 103 (3):299-323.
Gregory Lavers (2012). On the Quinean-Analyticity of Mathematical Propositions. Philosophical Studies 159 (2):299-319.
Marian David (1996). Analyticity, Carnap, Quine, and Truth. Philosophical Perspectives 10:281 - 296.
Jack C. Lyons (2005). Representational Analyticity. Mind and Language 20 (4):392–422.
Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (2001). Boghossian on Analyticity. Analysis 61 (4):293–302.
Added to index2009-06-10
Total downloads72 ( #57,235 of 1,792,080 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #207,127 of 1,792,080 )
How can I increase my downloads?