That is, if I say “My book is a book” I merely repeat a statement twice. Very roughly, the former believed that thought is an independent source of knowledge, while the latter, conversely, believed that experience is the only way to acquire knowledge. Or is it not rather merely a repetition of the question? It would have to fulfill two aspects: 1) the predicate concept must not be contained in the subject (synthetic) and 2) the justification for its truth must not rely on experience (a priori). That is, we have to say something like Joe has a total of 12 apples because he has 7 apples in the bag and 5 apples in the basket. Thus, a given geometry is a self-contained logical system devoid of factual content, that is, it is not about physical space, but can be used to reason about physical space. But if “body” is equal to “extension”, then I must be able to utter “body” to mean “extension”, or vice versa, in order for it to be a tautology. After having deconstructed Kant’s architecture, we are now able to see that the concept of synthetic a priori is a myth. Kant’s epistemology. A common assumption among philosophers is that Kant’s failure is due to his faith in the validity of Euclidean geometry, Aristotelian logic, and Newtonian physics. Some examples of synthetic a priori for Kant are the following: “7 + 5 = 12” (B15-16) (Indeed for Kant all propositions of mathematics are synthetic a priori) “The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.” (B16-17) “Everything that happens has its cause.” (B13/A9) In other words, we assume that events in the future will necessary occur in the same way as we have experienced them in the past because that is the way we have experienced them in the past. For each of the authors on the following list, answer the following questions: (i) Does the author believe that there are any analytic propositions? If they aren't, is there such thing? And a provisional answer is that one of the aspects of philosophy and indeed a feature of the world, we might say, to which Kant was awakened, is causality. The error that led Kant to believing in synthetic a priori judgments was to use both senses interchangeably. To take proposition 2, for example, Kant maintained that the concept “straight line” is not contained within the concept “the shortest distance between two points”, yet when we think about it, we realize that “a straight line is the shortest distance between two points” is necessarily (analytically) true. Analytic Propositions ( an example of not being obvious) ... is the knowledge of a synthetic proposition. Yet, it is necessarily true that “7+5=12.” This necessity, Kant claims, is not due to the fact that 7+5 is logically 12 as in the case of a proposition such as “A triangle is a three-sided figure” where the definition of a triangle is a geometric figure with three sides. So after clearing the air, we are now ready to turn to the synthetic a priori. For example: that Smith is justified in believing that p; that Jones ought not phi; that happiness is better than suffering; that torture is generally wrong; that the Theory of Evolution is more overall rational to believe than Creationism; and so on. So as we've seen, the denial of the synthetic a priori is both self-defeating and refuted by cases. In other words, it does not make sense to speak of making judgments a priori when we operate within a realm of experience. Are the conclusions that are drawn in my given examples not inferred a priori? But how can anything be true independently of experience? "All triangles have three sides." In other words, people believe that any given event in the world occurs as a result of a previous event, which causes a second event.