Abstract
In a pair of articles,1 Professors White and Quine have enumerated eight definitions of the term ‘analytic’ and after giving consideration to each, they assert that all these definitions are inadequate. Professor Quine even considers the sharp distinction between analytic and synthetic statements an unfounded dogma. But after these articles, there appeared successively three articles2 by other authors, all of which showed different opinions and tried to do justice to the term ‘analytic’. Two of them were written by R. M. Martin and John G. Kemeny. Both authors restricted their attention to the definition: “A sentence is analytic if and only if it can be reduced to a logical truth by definition.” Both argued persuasively in its support, and I concur in their opinion.
Reprinted from The Philosophical Review 65 (1956) 218–228 by permission of the publisher and the author.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Benson Mates, ‘Analytic Sentences ’ ,Philosophical Review LX (1951) 525–34,
R. M. Martin, ‘On Analytic ’ ,Philosophical Studies III (1952) 42–47.
John G. Kemeny, Review of Quine’s Two Dogmas of Empiricism’, Journal of Symbolic Logic (1952).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1993 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Liu, SC. (1993). On the Analytic and the Synthetic. In: Lin, CH., Fu, D. (eds) Philosophy and Conceptual History of Science in Taiwan. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 141. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2500-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2500-0_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-5103-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-2500-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive