Analytic Aposteriority and its Relevance to Twentieth Century Philosophy

Studia Humana 1:3—16 (2012)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
This article begins with an overview of the fourfold epistemological framework that arises out of Kant’s distinctions between analyticity and syntheticity and between apriority and aposteriority. I challenge Kant’s claim that the fourth classification, analytic aposteriority, is empty. In reviewing three articles written during the third quarter of the twentieth century that also defend analytic aposteriority, I identify promising insights suggested by Benardete (1958). I then present overviews of two 1987 articles wherein I defend analytic aposteriority, first as a classification highlighting the epistemological status of several crucial (and easily misunderstood) features of Kant’s own philosophy, and second as a way of expressing some of Kripke’s claims about naming in more authentically Kantian terminology. The paper concludes with suggestions of several other important philosophical developments that also make advances precisely insofar as they expound the nature and implications of the epistemological classification that Kant assumed to be empty
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-07-16
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
40 ( #57,665 of 2,448,790 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #48,870 of 2,448,790 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.