New answers tagged

2

The split between Rationalism and Empiricism (note the capital letters) goes back to the 17th century. Basically, it is a dispute about the proper foundation of knowledge: Rationalism holds that knowledge is (in one of several ways) founded in our mind and in the human capacity to use reason. Empiricism holds that knowledge must (in one form or another) be ...


3

This is a bit subtle. I'm guessing "case of knowledge justified through reason alone" is pointing to the Kantian conception of mathematics as synthetic a priori knowledge. Frege really wanted to be a Kantian and expressed great admiration for Kant, whom had come up with the distinction between synthetic a priori and analytic a priori knowledge. But ...


3

Logical positivism may not be the perfect label, actually according to Hempel who's one of its major figures during its heyday in last century, it should be more properly called logical empiricism as described here: Hempel never embraced the term "logical positivism" as an accurate description of the Vienna Circle and Berlin Group, preferring to ...


-1

Given that in your comments you reject "nesting issues" like those discussed in two of the above answers as being relevant to your question (although you didn't not mention this in your initial question), I suppose your whole point is what is sometimes observed in intro classes to logic, e.g. by Dona Warren: Conditionals are important to logic ...


0

Given your other comments on this page, you identify the conditional with the consequence relation (at least in this context of deductive reasoning). This is fine in classical logic because it has a/the deduction theorem and is also structurally complete (meaning every admissible rule is also derivable in classical logic). So, sure in classical logic A, B |- ...


Top 50 recent answers are included