Ok, then consider the rephrasing as a means of, firstly, repairing the analytic/synthetic distinction, and secondly, dressing it up in newly-fashionable terms for the twenty-first century. :)
At least here, you’ve just stated, not repaired or defended, a view implying the analytic/synthetic distinction.
In order to repair the analytic/synthetic distinction, we should first get in view what broke it. One of the most important papers criticizing LPism on this score was Quine’s “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. So we’d need to read and respond to that. So here.
For anyone who wants more, one of the earliest responses to Quine, Grice and Strawson’s “In Defense of a Dogma,” is here. I’m also quite fond of Carnap’s reply to Quine in Carnap’s volume in the Library of Living Philosophers, but I don’t think that’s online anywhere.
Ok, then consider the rephrasing as a means of, firstly, repairing the analytic/synthetic distinction, and secondly, dressing it up in newly-fashionable terms for the twenty-first century. :)
At least here, you’ve just stated, not repaired or defended, a view implying the analytic/synthetic distinction.
In order to repair the analytic/synthetic distinction, we should first get in view what broke it. One of the most important papers criticizing LPism on this score was Quine’s “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. So we’d need to read and respond to that. So here.
For anyone who wants more, one of the earliest responses to Quine, Grice and Strawson’s “In Defense of a Dogma,” is here. I’m also quite fond of Carnap’s reply to Quine in Carnap’s volume in the Library of Living Philosophers, but I don’t think that’s online anywhere.