I take it that logic and math can conceivably produce truths independent of humans (platonic truths), and probably ethics and maybe analyticity can as well. Ethical truths might conceivably be platonic, outside of human authority (I'm pretty sure some philosophers think this), and analyticity provides truths, in virtue of meaning. I want truth, irrespective of humans, which is not part of the above 4 disciplines.
If they exist, what do platonic/a priori truths look like without using math, logic, ethics, and analyticity? Like forget them, can we still come up with a priori truths - even after using empirical study- which aren't true purely from their meanings (analyticity)? I include "even after empirical study" because some platonic mathematical truths took empirical study, like the 4-color theorem.
So for an example, is there a treatment of natural language like "all bachelors are male", which treats it as a truth independent of humans without the above 4 discourses? That is, its truth does not take humans actually instantiating it to be true, and still falls outside of the above 4, and is true.
I don't think there is necessarily analyticity or logic even in the bachelors case, and yet it still might be true regardless of humans existing. Of course we do exist, but it might remain a truth even if we didn't. "All bachelors are male" perhaps can be interpreted as I seek as, "if there are humans who develop language and have the norm of marriage, they will call their unmarried males something which is etymologically similar to a popular term which typically applies to single males."
That phrasing seems to have a inkling of platonic truth, no? I know it is still 99.99% synthetic, and took some empirical study to get going, but with additional massaging can we make it even more a priori? And then, is it an a priori/platonic statement like the 4-color theorem?
Could someone at least help me on what is going on by this unraveling of shorter synthetic statements into longer, more a priori ones?
(I don't think this is a dead-end, idiosyncratic understanding because these "if ___ " statements seem to be how fictionalism in mathematics works, i.e. [mathematical objects might not exist, but if they do, they produce true statements] is true regardless of humans)