Page 60 of the teacher's notes on the week 3 Pageant of Philosophy shows Venn diagrams and discusses them. We are confused about a statement at the end of this section - it talks about statements that are a priori but not analytic, and calls them "analytic a priori statements". This seems to be a contradiction (or a typo?). Can you clarify for us? Thanks!

Scott Makes a Mistake Here!

It's not a typo! You've spotted the truly surprising part of Kant's philosophy.

Actually, it IS a typo!

Everybody before Kant had assumed that "a priori" was more or less a synonym for "analytic." Kant says they are NOT identical to each other. Instead, he says there are statements which ARE "a priori" which are NOT analytic.

His most obvious examples of such statements are geometry mathematics. Here's a web page that goes into more detail.

Please ignore this post, or read the whole thread to get to the bottom where I say "oops"

Wait - I'm confused, reading these posts. I know nothing about Kant - I'm looking at the wording here. If they're a priori but not analytic, why are they called "analytic a priori" statements? Shouldn't they be "non-analytic" instead? Or do I misunderstand?

Yes, that's just what I mean, Beth. My husband thought maybe they should be called "synthetic a priori".

May I ask for a clarification? The website mentioned above is very helpful - thanks - and it calls those kinds of statements "synthetic a priori" not "analytic a priori" also. Thanks.

It seems to me, also, that these statements (the ones in the ? area of the Venn diagram on p. 60) would be considered "synthetic a priori" statements.

Just a note - we are all (I believe) referring to the very last sentence of #6 of the philosophy discussion outline on p. 60.

I read the Story of Philosophy pages and thought I was getting a grasp on Kant. Then I read the Pageant of Philosophy and I was confused. I read the TN's and I was still confused. I checked the above website and I am completely lost. I remember studying him in college. Back then he seemed to make sense but I don't remember anything! I was hoping things would click when I did our discussion today. I went over the Story of Philosophy pages with my dd and she was grasping that. But the rest confused her as well. I am wondering if there is a layman's interpretation somewhere?

I see the confusion here... and I think I helped create it with my earlier comment.

Kant is seeking SYNTHETIC a priori statements. I think I got myself tangled up in double negatives above by taking about "non-analytic" statements.

We will review and revise! Thanks for your help in untangling all this.

Thanks for being willing to say you made a mistake. That's one reason I appreciate all of you so much! And you are gracious and gentle with us when we make the mistakes! God bless you all as you work so hard on our and our children's behalf!