Being and Knowledge
Fall 2008
Paper Assignment: The Analytic and the Synthetic
Length: between 10 to 15 pages.
Due Date: October 17th
The classical view (typically taken to be Kant's view, but I don't take the classical view as
necessarily committed to the existence of synthetic a priori propositions) argues for the existence
of and intelligibility of an "analytic/synthetic" distinction. According to the classical view,
"analytic" statements are always a priori and necessary, while synthetic statements are always a
posteriori and contingent (unless you admit synthetic a priori statements, of course). Radical
empiricists -- like Mill -- reject analytic statements and claim that all statements are synthetic. In
Ayer's article "The A Priori", he argues that while we must -- like Mill -- be in favor of a robust
empiricism, there is in fact a defensible way to draw an analytic/synthetic distinction.
The first part of your paper should aim at making this much clear to the reader. Spend a good
amount of time simply explaining the classical view (all three distinctions and how they are
related), Mill's objection to that view, and Ayer's attempt to re-enforce the analytic/synthetic.
Remember that this part of the paper is explication. You are aiming at maximum clarity and
detail. Expect that your reader has some basic philosophical knowledge, but knows nothing
about the topic under consideration. So you need to explain everything. Use the text skillfully
throughout the paper by using well chosen quotes to back up your claims.
The second part of your paper is argumentative. The main problem that you will be thinking
about is this: it could be said that A. J. Ayer's attempts to fortify the analytic/synthetic distinction
for empiricism lays the groundwork for the eventual dismissal of that distinction as an
"unwarranted metaphysical dogmatism" (Quine).
In the second part of the paper I want you to think deeply about this and whether you think it is
true. In thinking about it, I want you to consider these related questions (as helping hints):
(1) Seeing that Ayer and Mill are both empiricists and that they both agree that logic and
mathematics are originally gleaned from experience, is Ayer right to disagree with Mill that there
is a difference between analytic and synthetic statements? Does Ayer's use of "necessarily true"
for some propositions and Mill's refusal to use that phrase say anything interesting about their
differences?
(2) In what ways could Ayer's arguments against Mill in favor of retaining the analytic/synthetic
distinction -- arguments that rely in part on his way of re-interpreting "necessity" -- be seen as a
precursor to Quine's eventual dismantling of that very same distinction and the subsequent
introduction of holism? In other words: is there way of seeing a clear line of movement within
empiricism from Ayer to Quine on this question? If so, how can one argue for the other argue
against the analytic/synthetic distinction?