Those who have a brief against the analytic-synthetic distinction raise problems for what seem to supporters of the distinction to be some of the clearest cases. That bachelors are unmarried seems to many to be analytically true. But to hold this seems to imply that there is a definition of "bachelor" that includes being unmarried. But critics of the analytic-synthetic distinction, such as Jerry Fodor, deny that there are true definitions (reportive, not stipulative). So there can be no definition of "bachelor". And many have noted that defining "bachelor" is not as easy as appears at first blush.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Analyticity Again.Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore - 2006 - In Michael Devitt & Richard Hanley (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language. Blackwell. pp. 19--114.
The Analytic and the Synthetic as Linguistic Topics.Sylvain Auroux - 1985 - Topoi 4 (2):193-199.
From a Phono-Logical Point of View: Neutralizing Quine's Argument Against Analyticity.Reese M. Heitner - 2006 - Synthese 150 (1):15-39.
Analyticity.George Bealer - 1998 - In Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. pp. 234-9.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads44 ( #118,079 of 2,169,134 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #345,573 of 2,169,134 )
How can I increase my downloads?