Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The analytic-synthetic distinction, central to much of 20th-century Anglo-American philosophy, categorizes statements as either analytically true (true by virtue of meaning, e.g., “All bachelors are unmarried”) or synthetically true (true by virtue of fact, e.g., “The cat is on the mat”). This distinction was considered crucial for understanding epistemology, semantics, and the nature of knowledge. However, in his seminal paper “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” (1951), Willard Van Orman Quine launched a powerful attack on this distinction, arguing it lacked a defensible basis and that it obscured the holistic nature of meaning and belief. His critique fundamentally altered the landscape of philosophical inquiry into language and knowledge.
The Traditional Analytic-Synthetic Distinction
Traditionally, analytic statements were considered true solely based on the meanings of the words involved. They are necessarily true and do not require empirical verification. Synthetic statements, conversely, are true or false depending on how things are in the world and require empirical evidence. This distinction was seen as vital for demarcating a priori knowledge (knowable independently of experience) from a posteriori knowledge (knowable through experience). Philosophers like Rudolf Carnap heavily relied on this distinction in their attempts to build a logical empiricist framework.
Quine’s Attack: Indeterminacy of Translation
Quine’s primary challenge stems from his thought experiment concerning the indeterminacy of translation. He asks us to imagine a linguist attempting to translate the utterances of a previously uncontacted tribe. There are multiple, equally valid ways to translate their language, even with perfect observational data. This is because meaning isn’t inherent in individual words but arises from the overall system of beliefs and how those beliefs relate to experience.
- Radical Translation: Quine argues that even in radical translation (translating a language with no prior knowledge), there’s no objective fact of the matter about what a native speaker *means* by a particular utterance.
- Gavagai: His famous “gavagai” example illustrates this. When a native speaker says “gavagai” while pointing at a rabbit, it could equally mean “rabbit,” “undetached rabbit parts,” “rabbithood,” or any number of other things. There’s no empirical way to definitively choose between these translations.
Quine’s Attack: Holism of Meaning
Quine’s holism further undermines the analytic-synthetic distinction. He argues that our beliefs are organized into a web of belief, and individual statements aren’t meaningful in isolation. When faced with recalcitrant experience, we don’t revise single beliefs; instead, we adjust the entire web to maintain coherence.
- Revisability: Any statement, even one traditionally considered analytic, is revisable in light of experience. For example, we might revise our understanding of “bachelor” if confronted with cultural practices that challenge our conventional understanding of marriage.
- No Absolute Foundation: There is no privileged set of analytic truths that serve as a secure foundation for knowledge. All beliefs are, in principle, subject to revision.
Implications of Quine’s Critique
Quine’s critique had profound implications for philosophy. It challenged the foundations of logical positivism and empiricism, forcing a re-evaluation of the nature of meaning, truth, and knowledge. It led to a greater emphasis on pragmatism and the social construction of meaning. While not universally accepted, Quine’s arguments remain highly influential in contemporary philosophy of language and epistemology. His work shifted the focus from analyzing the internal structure of language to understanding how language functions within a broader cognitive and social context.
Furthermore, Quine’s attack on analyticity blurred the lines between conceptual analysis and empirical investigation. If no statement is truly immune to revision, then all knowledge claims are, to some extent, empirical.
Conclusion
Quine’s attack on the analytic-synthetic distinction was a watershed moment in 20th-century philosophy. By demonstrating the indeterminacy of translation and advocating for the holism of meaning, he challenged the traditional view of language as a mirror of reality and highlighted the role of convention and pragmatic considerations in shaping our understanding of the world. While his conclusions remain debated, his critique continues to shape contemporary discussions about language, knowledge, and the limits of human understanding.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.