{"title":"Did the Ancient Greeks Know the Difference Between Analytic and Synthetic Judgments? Discussion of a Question Posed in The Aetas Kantiana","authors":"Rogelio Rovira","doi":"10.3196/004433022835407113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a 1793 essay, J. Ch. Schwab claimed that Kant's distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments was already known to the Megarian philosopher Stilpo. Schwab's essay was criticised as early as 1794 by J. F. Ch. Gräffe. In a 1789 essay, J. A. Eberhard had also denied the\n originality of Kant's division of judgments and made certain indications suggesting that Aristotle was aware of the distinction. In this paper, I propose a fresh examination of why Schwab is wrong to attribute knowledge of Kant's division of judgments to Stilpo – a second look which,\n however, does not disregard Gräffe's contributions to the discussion. Second, I argue that, in a precise sense, Kant's division of judgments is indeed original, but that the analytic – synthetic distinction was nevertheless in a sense known to Aristotle. The assessment of these\n alleged precedents sheds light no only on the novelty of Kant's philosophical project but also on what may be called the \"the paradox of the discovery of an evident philosophical distinction\".","PeriodicalId":43672,"journal":{"name":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3196/004433022835407113","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In a 1793 essay, J. Ch. Schwab claimed that Kant's distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments was already known to the Megarian philosopher Stilpo. Schwab's essay was criticised as early as 1794 by J. F. Ch. Gräffe. In a 1789 essay, J. A. Eberhard had also denied the
originality of Kant's division of judgments and made certain indications suggesting that Aristotle was aware of the distinction. In this paper, I propose a fresh examination of why Schwab is wrong to attribute knowledge of Kant's division of judgments to Stilpo – a second look which,
however, does not disregard Gräffe's contributions to the discussion. Second, I argue that, in a precise sense, Kant's division of judgments is indeed original, but that the analytic – synthetic distinction was nevertheless in a sense known to Aristotle. The assessment of these
alleged precedents sheds light no only on the novelty of Kant's philosophical project but also on what may be called the "the paradox of the discovery of an evident philosophical distinction".
期刊介绍:
Mit diesem Doppelheft beginnt die Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung ihren 50. Jahrgang. Ihre Gründung im Frühjahr 1946 verdankt sie einem glücklichen Zusammenwirken. Die Initiative eines Münchner Philosophen aus Bulgarien verbindet sich mit dem Sachverstand namhafter Professoren, die damals noch aus ganz Deutschland, nicht nur dem Westen kommen. Ob er sie "nur" als Autoren oder zusätzlich für den Beirat der Redaktion gewinnt - von Anfang an versichert sich Georgi Schischkoff der Mitarbeit fast aller großen Namen der Zeit. Zunächst sind es etwa der Philosoph und Pädagoge Friedrich Bollnow, der Platon-Forscher Ernst Hoffmann, der Philosoph und Psychologe Philipp Lersch und die Philosophen Walter Bröcker und Wilhelm Weischedel.