A Synthesis of Grice-Strawson‟s, and Putnam‟s Arguments in Defence of the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction

Abstract

Critical debates on the analytic- synthetic distinction1 started with W. V. Quine. He questioned all the grounds upon which the analytic-synthetic distinction is founded. After his critical assessment of the grounds upon which the purported distinction is based, he found out that all these grounds are not sufficient to justify the distinction. He then declared the analytic-synthetic distinction unjustified. Grice and Strawson, Putnam, and other proponents of the distinction have made serious attempts to defend it. This paper critically researches into the arguments of the opponents of Quine with a view to assessing the strength and weaknesses and then come out with a synthesis of the arguments. In other words, the paper intends to attempt an alternative defence of the analytic-synthetic distinction from the synthesis of the arguments.

Keywords: Semantical rule, Satisfactory explanation, Analyticity, Formal language, Web of belief.