Modus vivendi (plural modi vivendi ) is a Latin phrase that means "mode of living" or " way of life ". In international relations , it often is used to mean an arrangement or agreement that allows conflicting parties to coexist in peace. In science, it is used to describe lifestyles .
63-430: Modus means "mode", "way", "method", or "manner". Vivendi means "of living". The phrase is often used to describe informal and temporary arrangements in political affairs. For example, if two sides reach a modus vivendi regarding disputed territories, despite political, historical or cultural incompatibilities, an accommodation of their respective differences is established for the sake of contingency . In diplomacy ,
126-495: A modus vivendi is an instrument for establishing an international accord of a temporary or provisional nature, intended to be replaced by a more substantial and thorough agreement, such as a treaty . Armistices and instruments of surrender are intended to achieve a modus vivendi . The term often refers to Anglo-French relations from the 1815 end of the Napoleonic Wars to the 1904 Entente Cordiale . On 7 January 1948,
189-436: A tautology by putting synonyms for synonyms is near Kant's account of analytic truth as a truth whose negation is a contradiction. Analytic truth defined as a truth confirmed no matter what, however, is closer to one of the traditional accounts of a priori . While the first four sections of Quine's paper concern analyticity, the last two concern a-priority. Putnam considers the argument in the two last sections as independent of
252-412: A Dogma". Among other things, they argue that Quine's skepticism about synonyms leads to a skepticism about meaning. If statements can have meanings, then it would make sense to ask "What does it mean?". If it makes sense to ask "What does it mean?", then synonymy can be defined as follows: Two sentences are synonymous if and only if the true answer of the question "What does it mean?" asked of one of them
315-502: A discipline is impossible. The remainder of the Critique of Pure Reason is devoted to examining whether and how knowledge of synthetic a priori propositions is possible. Over a hundred years later, a group of philosophers took interest in Kant and his distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions: the logical positivists . Part of Kant's examination of the possibility of synthetic
378-481: A fact of necessity which could not have been known to us, its occurrence at simply any time was not necessary. Medieval thinkers studied logical contingency as a way to analyze the relationship between Early Modern conceptions of God and the modal status of the world qua His creation. Early Modern writers studied contingency against the freedom of the Christian Trinity not to create the universe or set in order
441-403: A framework). The "external" questions were also of two types: those that were confused pseudo-questions ("one disguised in the form of a theoretical question") and those that could be re-interpreted as practical, pragmatic questions about whether a framework under consideration was "more or less expedient, fruitful, conducive to the aim for which the language is intended". The adjective "synthetic"
504-630: A given world. Some philosophical distinctions are used to examine the line between contingent and necessary statements. These include analytic and epistemic distinctions as well as the modal distinctions already noted. But there is not always agreement about exactly what these distinctions mean or how they are used. Philosophers such as Jaakko Hintikka and Arthur Pap consider the concept of analytic truths, for example (as distinct from synthetic ones) to be ambiguous since in practice they are defined or used in different ways. And while Saul Kripke stipulates that analytic statements are always necessary and
567-457: A heart also has kidneys, the concept "creature with a heart" does not contain the concept "has kidneys". So the philosophical issue is: What kind of statement is "Language is used to transmit meaning"? In the Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason , Kant contrasts his distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions with another distinction, the distinction between a priori and
630-414: A kind of possible statement (e.g. 2=2 is possible and necessary), then to define possible statements as 'false in some possible world' is to affect the definition of necessary statements. Since necessary statements are never false in any possible world, then some possible statements are never false in any possible world. So the idea that a statement might ever be false and yet remain an unrealized possibility
693-623: A necessity of consequence". Prior interprets Edwards by supposing that any necessary consequence of any already necessary truth would "also 'always have existed,' so that it is only by a necessary connexion (sic) with 'what has already come to pass' that what is still merely future can be necessary." Further, in Past, Present, and Future , Prior attributes an argument against the incompatibility of God's foreknowledge or foreordaining with future contingency to Edward's Enquiry . Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic distinction The analytic–synthetic distinction
SECTION 10
#1732869424915756-433: A posteriori propositions. He defines these terms as follows: Examples of a priori propositions include: The justification of these propositions does not depend upon experience: one need not consult experience to determine whether all bachelors are unmarried, nor whether 7 + 5 = 12 . (Of course, as Kant would grant, experience is required to understand the concepts "bachelor", "unmarried", "7", "+" and so forth. However,
819-420: A posteriori propositions. That leaves only the question of how knowledge of synthetic a priori propositions is possible. This question is exceedingly important, Kant maintains, because all scientific knowledge (for him Newtonian physics and mathematics) is made up of synthetic a priori propositions. If it is impossible to determine which synthetic a priori propositions are true, he argues, then metaphysics as
882-432: A posteriori statements have already been given, for synthetic a priori propositions he gives those in mathematics and physics. Part of Kant's argument in the Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason involves arguing that there is no problem figuring out how knowledge of analytic propositions is possible. To know an analytic proposition, Kant argued, one need not consult experience. Instead, one needs merely to take
945-501: A priori knowledge involved the examination of mathematical propositions, such as Kant maintained that mathematical propositions such as these are synthetic a priori propositions, and that we know them. That they are synthetic, he thought, is obvious: the concept "equal to 12" is not contained within the concept "7 + 5"; and the concept "straight line" is not contained within the concept "the shortest distance between two points". From this, Kant concluded that we have knowledge of synthetic
1008-478: A priori propositions. Although not strictly speaking a logical positivist, Gottlob Frege 's notion of analyticity influenced them greatly. It included a number of logical properties and relations beyond containment: symmetry , transitivity , antonymy , or negation and so on. He had a strong emphasis on formality, in particular formal definition, and also emphasized the idea of substitution of synonymous terms. "All bachelors are unmarried" can be expanded out with
1071-618: A priori truths. Thanks to Frege's logical semantics, particularly his concept of analyticity, arithmetic truths like "7+5=12" are no longer synthetic a priori but analytical a priori truths in Carnap 's extended sense of "analytic". Hence logical empiricists are not subject to Kant's criticism of Hume for throwing out mathematics along with metaphysics. (Here "logical empiricist" is a synonym for "logical positivist".) The logical positivists agreed with Kant that we have knowledge of mathematical truths, and further that mathematical propositions are
1134-449: A priori , Edward Zalta claims that there are examples in which analytic statements are not necessary. Kripke uses the example of a meter stick to support the idea that some a priori truths are contingent. In Time and Modality , A. N. Prior argues that a cross-examination between the basic principles of modal logic and those of quantificational logic seems to require that "whatever exists exists necessarily." He says this threatens
1197-415: A priori . However, they did not believe that any complex metaphysics, such as the type Kant supplied, are necessary to explain our knowledge of mathematical truths. Instead, the logical positivists maintained that our knowledge of judgments like "all bachelors are unmarried" and our knowledge of mathematics (and logic) are in the basic sense the same: all proceeded from our knowledge of the meanings of terms or
1260-474: A priori ; there are no a posteriori analytic propositions. It follows, second: There is no problem understanding how we can know analytic propositions; we can know them because we only need to consult our concepts in order to determine that they are true. After ruling out the possibility of analytic a posteriori propositions, and explaining how we can obtain knowledge of analytic a priori propositions, Kant also explains how we can obtain knowledge of synthetic
1323-400: A series of natural events. In the 16th century, European Reformed Scholasticism subscribed to John Duns Scotus' idea of synchronic contingency, which attempted to remove perceived contradictions between necessity, human freedom and the free will of God to create the world. In the 17th Century, Baruch Spinoza in his Ethics states that a thing is called contingent when "we do not know whether
SECTION 20
#17328694249151386-427: A working notion of analyticity. In "'Two Dogmas' Revisited", Hilary Putnam argues that Quine is attacking two different notions: It seems to me there is as gross a distinction between 'All bachelors are unmarried' and 'There is a book on this table' as between any two things in this world, or at any rate, between any two linguistic expressions in the world; Analytic truth defined as a true statement derivable from
1449-482: A world in which it is also always logically achievable. In such a world, the contingent idea is never necessarily false since this would make it impossible in that world. But if it's false and yet still possible, this means the truths or facts in that world would have to change in order for the contingent truth to become actualized . When a statement's truth depends on this kind of change, it is contingent: possible but dependent on whatever facts are actually taking place in
1512-476: A world: the truth of any impossible statement must contradict some other fact in that world. Contingency is not impossible , so a contingent statement is therefore one which is true in at least one possible world. But contingency is also not necessary , so a contingent statement is false in at least one possible world. While contingent statements are false in at least one possible world, possible statements are not also defined this way. Since necessary statements are
1575-419: Is a semantic distinction used primarily in philosophy to distinguish between propositions (in particular, statements that are affirmative subject – predicate judgments) that are of two types: analytic propositions and synthetic propositions . Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their meaning, whereas synthetic propositions' truth, if any, derives from how their meaning relates to
1638-421: Is an affirmative subject–predicate judgment, and, in each, the predicate concept is contained within the subject concept. The concept "bachelor" contains the concept "unmarried"; the concept "unmarried" is part of the definition of the concept "bachelor". Likewise, for "triangle" and "has three sides", and so on. Examples of synthetic propositions, on Kant's definition, include: Kant's own example is: As with
1701-424: Is entirely reserved to contingent statements alone. While all contingent statements are possible, not all possible statements are contingent. The truth of a contingent statement is consistent with all other truths in a given world, but not necessarily so. They are always possible in every imaginable world but not always true in every imaginable world. This distinction begins to reveal the ordinary English meaning of
1764-534: Is no non-circular (and so no tenable) way to ground the notion of analytic propositions. While Quine's rejection of the analytic–synthetic distinction is widely known, the precise argument for the rejection and its status is highly debated in contemporary philosophy. However, some (for example, Paul Boghossian ) argue that Quine's rejection of the distinction is still widely accepted among philosophers, even if for poor reasons. Paul Grice and P. F. Strawson criticized "Two Dogmas" in their 1956 article "In Defense of
1827-426: Is not identical with the internal–external distinction . In 1951, Willard Van Orman Quine published the essay " Two Dogmas of Empiricism " in which he argued that the analytic–synthetic distinction is untenable. The argument at bottom is that there are no "analytic" truths, but all truths involve an empirical aspect. In the first paragraph, Quine takes the distinction to be the following: Quine's position denying
1890-410: Is that Aristotle was not attempting to disqualify assertoric statements about future contingents from being either true or false, but that their truth value was indeterminant. This latter reading takes future contingents to possess a truth value, one which is necessary but which is unknown. This view understands Aristotle to be saying that while some event's occurrence at a specified time was necessary,
1953-420: Is the true answer to the same question asked of the other. They also draw the conclusion that discussion about correct or incorrect translations would be impossible given Quine's argument. Four years after Grice and Strawson published their paper, Quine's book Word and Object was released. In the book Quine presented his theory of indeterminacy of translation . In Speech Acts , John Searle argues that from
Modus vivendi - Misplaced Pages Continue
2016-414: Is true. One need merely examine the subject concept ("bachelors") and see if the predicate concept "unmarried" is contained in it. And in fact, it is: "unmarried" is part of the definition of "bachelor" and so is contained within it. Thus the proposition "All bachelors are unmarried" can be known to be true without consulting experience. It follows from this, Kant argued, first: All analytic propositions are
2079-456: Is widely accepted, the precise distinction (or lack thereof) between what is contingent and what is necessary has been challenged since antiquity. In logic, a thing is considered to be possible when it is true in at least one possible world . This means there is a way to imagine a world in which a statement is true and in which its truth does not contradict any other truth in that world. If it were impossible, there would be no way to conceive such
2142-404: Is workable it solves some very important problems in the philosophy of language. Saul Kripke has argued that "Water is H 2 O" is an example of the necessary a posteriori , since we had to discover that water was H 2 O, but given that it is true, it cannot be false. It would be absurd to claim that something that is water is not H 2 O, for these are known to be identical . Rudolf Carnap
2205-420: The a priori – a posteriori distinction as employed here by Kant refers not to the origins of the concepts but to the justification of the propositions. Once we have the concepts, experience is no longer necessary.) Examples of a posteriori propositions include: Both of these propositions are a posteriori : any justification of them would require one's experience. The analytic–synthetic distinction and
2268-476: The a priori – a posteriori distinction together yield four types of propositions: Kant posits the third type as obviously self-contradictory. Ruling it out, he discusses only the remaining three types as components of his epistemological framework—each, for brevity's sake, becoming, respectively, "analytic", "synthetic a priori ", and "empirical" or " a posteriori " propositions. This triad accounts for all propositions possible. Examples of analytic and examples of
2331-513: The truth-value of a sentence . It is intended to resolve a puzzle that has plagued philosophy for some time, namely: How is it possible to discover empirically that a necessary truth is true ? Two-dimensionalism provides an analysis of the semantics of words and sentences that makes sense of this possibility. The theory was first developed by Robert Stalnaker , but it has been advocated by numerous philosophers since, including David Chalmers and Berit Brogaard . Any given sentence, for example,
2394-545: The United States, Britain and Canada, concluded an agreement known as the modus vivendi , that allowed for limited sharing of technical information on nuclear weapons which officially repealed the Quebec Agreement . Contingency (philosophy) In logic, contingency is the feature of a statement making it neither necessary nor impossible. Contingency is a fundamental concept of modal logic . Modal logic concerns
2457-480: The analytic statements. But, for all its a priori reasonableness, a boundary between analytic and synthetic statements simply has not been drawn. That there is such a distinction to be drawn at all is an unempirical dogma of empiricists, a metaphysical article of faith. To summarize Quine's argument, the notion of an analytic proposition requires a notion of synonymy, but establishing synonymy inevitably leads to matters of fact – synthetic propositions. Thus, there
2520-425: The analytic–synthetic distinction is summarized as follows: It is obvious that truth in general depends on both language and extralinguistic fact. ... Thus one is tempted to suppose in general that the truth of a statement is somehow analyzable into a linguistic component and a factual component. Given this supposition, it next seems reasonable that in some statements the factual component should be null; and these are
2583-728: The case of contingent future-tense statements. Aristotle asserts that if this were the case for future contingent statements as well, some of them would be necessarily true , a fact which seems to contradict their contingency. Aristotle's intention with these claims breaks down into two primary readings of his work. The first view, considered notably by Boethius, supposes that Aristotle's intentions were to argue against this logical determinism only by claiming future contingent statements are neither true nor false. This reading of Aristotle regards future contingents as simply disqualified from possessing any truth value at all until they are actualized . The opposing view, with an early version from Cicero,
Modus vivendi - Misplaced Pages Continue
2646-589: The conventions of language. Since empiricism had always asserted that all knowledge is based on experience, this assertion had to include knowledge in mathematics. On the other hand, we believed that with respect to this problem the rationalists had been right in rejecting the old empiricist view that the truth of "2+2=4" is contingent on the observation of facts, a view that would lead to the unacceptable consequence that an arithmetical statement might possibly be refuted tomorrow by new experiences. Our solution, based upon Wittgenstein 's conception, consisted in asserting
2709-418: The definition of contingent statements as non-necessary things when one generically intuits that some of what exists does so contingently, rather than necessarily. Harry Deutsch acknowledged Prior's concern and outlines rudimentary notes about a "Logic for Contingent Beings." Deutsch believes that the solution to Prior's concern begins by removing the assumption that logical statements are necessary. He believes
2772-402: The difficulties encountered in trying to explicate analyticity by appeal to specific criteria, it does not follow that the notion itself is void. Considering the way that we would test any proposed list of criteria, which is by comparing their extension to the set of analytic statements, it would follow that any explication of what analyticity means presupposes that we already have at our disposal
2835-407: The essence does or does not involve a contradiction, or of which, knowing that it does not involve a contradiction, we are still in doubt concerning the existence, because the order of causes escape us." Further, he states, "It is in the nature of reason to perceive things under a certain form of eternity as necessary and it is only through our imagination that we consider things, whether in respect to
2898-433: The following: (While the logical positivists believed that the only necessarily true propositions were analytic, they did not define "analytic proposition" as "necessarily true proposition" or "proposition that is true in all possible worlds".) Synthetic propositions were then defined as: These definitions applied to all propositions, regardless of whether they were of subject–predicate form. Thus, under these definitions,
2961-411: The formal definition of bachelor as "unmarried man" to form "All unmarried men are unmarried", which is recognizable as tautologous and therefore analytic from its logical form: any statement of the form "All X that are ( F and G ) are F ". Using this particular expanded idea of analyticity, Frege concluded that Kant's examples of arithmetical truths are analytical a priori truths and not synthetic
3024-505: The future or the past, as contingent. The eighteenth-century philosopher Jonathan Edwards in his work A Careful and Strict Enquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of Will which is supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame (1754), reviewed the relationships between action, determinism, and personal culpability. Edwards begins his argument by establishing
3087-401: The manner, or mode , in which statements are true. Contingency is one of three basic modes alongside necessity and possibility. In modal logic, a contingent statement stands in the modal realm between what is necessary and what is impossible, never crossing into the territory of either status. Contingent and necessary statements form the complete set of possible statements. While this definition
3150-647: The nature and usefulness of the distinction continue to this day in contemporary philosophy of language . The philosopher Immanuel Kant uses the terms "analytic" and "synthetic" to divide propositions into two types. Kant introduces the analytic–synthetic distinction in the Introduction to his Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1998, A6–7/B10–11). There, he restricts his attention to statements that are affirmative subject–predicate judgments and defines "analytic proposition" and "synthetic proposition" as follows: Examples of analytic propositions, on Kant's definition, include: Kant's own example is: Each of these statements
3213-432: The previous examples classified as analytic propositions, each of these new statements is an affirmative subject–predicate judgment. However, in none of these cases does the subject concept contain the predicate concept. The concept "bachelor" does not contain the concept "alone"; "alone" is not a part of the definition of "bachelor". The same is true for "creatures with hearts" and "have kidneys"; even if every creature with
SECTION 50
#17328694249153276-433: The primary intension watery stuff then the secondary intension of "water" is H 2 O, since H 2 O is watery stuff in this world. The secondary intension of "water" in our world is H 2 O, which is H 2 O in every world because unlike watery stuff it is impossible for H 2 O to be other than H 2 O. When considered according to its secondary intension, "Water is H 2 O" is true in every world. If two-dimensionalism
3339-433: The primary intension of "water" could have been otherwise. For example, on some other world where the inhabitants take "water" to mean watery stuff , but, where the chemical make-up of watery stuff is not H 2 O, it is not the case that water is H 2 O for that world. The secondary intension of "water" is whatever thing "water" happens to pick out in this world, whatever that world happens to be. So if we assign "water"
3402-410: The proposition "It is raining or it is not raining" was classified as analytic, while for Kant it was analytic by virtue of its logical form. And the proposition " 7 + 5 = 12 " was classified as analytic, while under Kant's definitions it was synthetic. Two-dimensionalism is an approach to semantics in analytic philosophy . It is a theory of how to determine the sense and reference of a word and
3465-517: The statement format, "If all objects are physical, and ϕ exists, then ϕ is physical," is logically true by form but is not necessarily true if ϕ rigidly designates , for example, a specific person who is not alive. In chapter 9 of De Interpretatione , Aristotle observes an apparent paradox in the nature of contingency. He considers that while the truth values of contingent past- and present-tense statements can be expressed in pairs of contradictions to represent their truth or falsity, this may not be
3528-478: The subject and "extract from it, in accordance with the principle of contradiction, the required predicate" (B12). In analytic propositions, the predicate concept is contained in the subject concept. Thus, to know an analytic proposition is true, one need merely examine the concept of the subject. If one finds the predicate contained in the subject, the judgment is true. Thus, for example, one need not consult experience to determine whether "All bachelors are unmarried"
3591-447: The thesis of empiricism only for factual truth. By contrast, the truths of logic and mathematics are not in need of confirmation by observations, because they do not state anything about the world of facts, they hold for any possible combination of facts. Thus the logical positivists drew a new distinction, and, inheriting the terms from Kant, named it the "analytic-synthetic distinction". They provided many different definitions, such as
3654-461: The ways in which necessary statements are made in logic. He identifies three ways necessary statements can be made for which only the third kind can legitimately be used to make necessary claims about the future. This third way of making necessary statements involves conditional or consequential necessity, such that if a contingent outcome could be caused by something that was necessary, then this contingent outcome could be considered necessary itself "by
3717-474: The word "contingency," in which the truth of one thing depends on the truth of another. On the one hand, the mathematical idea that a sum of two and two is four is always possible and always true, which makes it necessary and therefore not contingent. This mathematical truth does not depend on any other truth, it is true by definition. On the other hand, since a contingent statement is always possible but not necessarily true, we can always conceive it to be false in
3780-400: The words, is taken to express two distinct propositions , often referred to as a primary intension and a secondary intension , which together compose its meaning . The primary intension of a word or sentence is its sense , i.e., is the idea or method by which we find its referent. The primary intension of "water" might be a description, such as watery stuff . The thing picked out by
3843-441: The world. While the distinction was first proposed by Immanuel Kant , it was revised considerably over time, and different philosophers have used the terms in very different ways. Furthermore, some philosophers (starting with Willard Van Orman Quine ) have questioned whether there is even a clear distinction to be made between propositions which are analytically true and propositions which are synthetically true. Debates regarding
SECTION 60
#17328694249153906-455: Was a strong proponent of the distinction between what he called "internal questions", questions entertained within a "framework" (like a mathematical theory), and "external questions", questions posed outside any framework – posed before the adoption of any framework. The "internal" questions could be of two types: logical (or analytic, or logically true) and factual (empirical, that is, matters of observation interpreted using terms from
3969-809: Was not used by Carnap in his 1950 work Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology . Carnap did define a "synthetic truth" in his work Meaning and Necessity : a sentence that is true, but not simply because "the semantical rules of the system suffice for establishing its truth". The notion of a synthetic truth is of something that is true both because of what it means and because of the way the world is, whereas analytic truths are true in virtue of meaning alone. Thus, what Carnap calls internal factual statements (as opposed to internal logical statements) could be taken as being also synthetic truths because they require observations , but some external statements also could be "synthetic" statements and Carnap would be doubtful about their status. The analytic–synthetic argument therefore
#914085