(no subject)
Jun. 23rd, 2005 09:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaIn ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
real_philosophy lately there has been a lot of give-and-take on a priori, a posteriori, synthetic, and analytic statements. In college I was fascinated enough by philosophy of language to take a course on the subject.
However, I can't muster any excitement for it now. Besides, the monistic perspective makes that whole argument seem like just a bunch of wanking. Without an underlying assumption of dualism the distinction between a priori and a posteriori is weak.
And also, didn't Quine put all of that to rest anyway?
real_philosophy lately there has been a lot of give-and-take on a priori, a posteriori, synthetic, and analytic statements. In college I was fascinated enough by philosophy of language to take a course on the subject.However, I can't muster any excitement for it now. Besides, the monistic perspective makes that whole argument seem like just a bunch of wanking. Without an underlying assumption of dualism the distinction between a priori and a posteriori is weak.
And also, didn't Quine put all of that to rest anyway?
