Analyticity

by James F. Harris Jr. (Editor), Richard H. Severens (Editor)

Empiricism, in one form or another has enjoyed a long and noble history. When there appear substantial doubts about some of its most hallowed shibboleths, the occasion arises to collect some of those doubts together with the defenses they provoke. What might be called classical empiricism, best exemplified by Hume, seems to depend upon some distinction between analytic and synthetic statements. Whatever may be in fashion for casting the distinction, the core of empiricism - the notion that what we know about the world comes to us only through sensory observation - remains constant. When the distinction is challenged, the gauntlet is thrown and the time for careful reconsideration arises." So note the editors of Analyticty in their preface to this collection of essays about the sharp distinction between analytic and synthetic statements in philosophy that has come increasingly under attack in recent years. Since the analytic-synthetic distinction is a fundamental tenet of empiricism, one that is not merely a useful tool in epistemological inquiries but crucial to the entire body of classical empirical thought, the philosophical stakes in this debate are very high indeed. Eight outstanding critical articles, each by a contemporary philosopher of established reputation, provide the background and guidelines for the debate: W. V. Quinn, H. P. Grice and P. F. Strawson, Morton G. White, Benson Mates, J. L. Austin. Rudolf Carnap, Jonathan Bennett, and R, M, Martin.

196 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 1970