Your English is fine; I only found one
place where the plural/singular was mixed, otherwise it was perfectly well
As an amateur Kantian reader still
struggling with Kant’s idiomatic vocabulary, it was useful to read your distinction
of analytic and synthetic propositions. His a priori and a posteriori
knowledge doesn’t ring well with me, since it leaves out so much that is
experience versus innate mental mechanics.
Analytic propositions (correct me if this
is wrong) seem to be what are often called intensional representations in databases,
while synthetic propositions (experiential) seem to refer to the stored data,
often called extensional.
Welcome to the list; please post
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marcelino Sente
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 9:17
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Ontology
and kantian propositions
Kant has described two types of propositions in his philosophy:
analytic and synthetic.
An analytic proposition is one in which the predicate is contained in
the subject, as in the statement "No bachelor is married". The truth
of this statement is evident, the concept is present and is found just by
analyzing the terms granted without the need for rich experiences. This
proposition is true whatever our experience, because the meaning of "not
married" is already present in "Single."
In addition to the analytic proposition, Kant introduced the concept of
synthetic proposition. A synthetic proposition can not be achieved through
simple analysis: it requires experience. An example of this concept is evident
in the phrase "the girl's blonde." To know if the girl is really
blonde, you need an experience because it can not be sure of this statement
without first seeing it.
My question is: Is there a connection between ontology, as we conceive,
and Kant's analytic propositions?
The knowledge that is invariant over the different states of affairs
(captured in ontologies) is not made of analytic propositions?
In addition, models that represent specific states of affairs, is not
made of synthetic propositions?
Am I wrong? At what point?
PS: My english is terrible,unhappily...