View Poll Results: What's the relationship?

Voters
0. You may not vote on this poll
  • Analysts are good, synthesizers are bad.

    0 0%
  • Synthesizers are good, analysts are bad.

    0 0%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

  1. #11
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,984

    Re: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    nerds vs jocks? (to put it in highschool terms)
    Nerds, hands down
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    nerds vs jocks? (to put it in highschool terms)
    Not really.

    The real estate bubble is probably the most obvious example of analytic-synthetic thinking. Bankers, real estate agents, and government bureaucrats are all examples of synthetic social roles.

    Pop culture and academia are some other examples.

    Nerds versus jocks is more alpha-beta thinking.

  3. #13
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,867

    Re: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria
    The categorical imperative was predicated on how people are rational such that we only act without contradiction.
    Do you mean that the categorical imperative was meant to establish a connection between behaviors and principles, such that behavior would (or should) always conform to universalisable principles supported by the actor? If so, that is my understanding of the categorical imperative. But, though it's been a while since I've read Kant, I don't recall him ever saying that ethic principles should be only either analytic or synthetic. A synthetic proposition is just one that isn't deducible from the definitions of the terms involved. I don't know that it would be possible to deduce, merely from the definition of, say, murder, that murder is wrong. Seems like it would have to be a synthetic proposition to me. We'd need to know that human beings suffer pain and death, for one thing, and that's something that wouldn't be available in the definition of a human being, would it?. We couldn't know that analytically. We also probably couldn't know it a priori, so it wouldn't be an instance of the synthetic a priori, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria
    In turn, synthetic personalities are constantly acting contradictorily because if they were left to themselves, they couldn't live meaningful lives. Furthermore, they establish a social hierarchy where synthesizers need analysts around (yet analysts need to surround synthesizers) in order to be fulfilled.

    This isn't to say synthesizers can't mutter analytic propositions, but in order to learn them, they have to emulate analysts. Synthesizers are so socially competitive and hierarchic that they can't (or at least refuse to) learn analysis on their own.

    I think the really sick part about synthetic personalities, though, is how they're basically doing fun for work. Synthesis is the fun part of life where you connect with other analyses and analysts to uncover surprises. It's what we live for, yet synthesizers claim an entitlement to have fun because they can enjoy themselves better, and analysts are left in drudgery under the shame of being lazy if they don't struggle.
    It sounds to me like you're talking about people who are hypocrits as compared to people with integrity, calling the former "synthetic personalities" and the latter "analytic personalities." I'm not sure I get why you would want the unusual use of "analytic" and "synthetic."
    Last edited by ashurbanipal; 02-05-12 at 12:41 PM.

  4. #14
    Professor
    Sig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-13 @ 11:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,179

    Re: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    Yeah, I have to say I don't understand quite what you're asking. I know what Liebniz, and later Kant, defined an analytic proposition is, and what Kant defined a synthetic proposition is. I suppose I could hypothesize a little bit and suppose that in some possible world, there are people who only ever utter analytic propositions, and others who only ever utter synthetic propositions. But that doesn't really bring me any closer to understanding your post.
    The OP might just as well have asked "Which are better: cats or dogs?"

    Whatever point he is trying to make, it is moot.
    It's like you're dreaming of Gorgonzola when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    Do you mean that the categorical imperative was meant to establish a connection between behaviors and principles, such that behavior would (or should) always conform to universalisable principles supported by the actor? If so, that is my understanding of the categorical imperative. But, though it's been a while since I've read Kant, I don't recall him ever saying that ethic principles should be only either analytic or synthetic. A synthetic proposition is just one that isn't deducible from the definitions of the terms involved. I don't know that it would be possible to deduce, merely from the definition of, say, murder, that murder is wrong. Seems like it would have to be a synthetic proposition to me. We'd need to know that human beings suffer pain and death, for one thing, and that's something that wouldn't be available in the definition of a human being, would it?. We couldn't know that analytically. We also probably couldn't know it a priori, so it wouldn't be an instance of the synthetic a priori, either.



    It sounds to me like you're talking about people who are hypocrits as compared to people with integrity, calling the former "synthetic personalities" and the latter "analytic personalities." I'm not sure I get why you would want the unusual use of "analytic" and "synthetic."
    Kant is very explicit when describing how the analytic-synthetic dichotomy corresponds to the necessity-contingency dichotomy.

    He's also explicit when describing how categorical imperatives only apply to what's necessary (and universal). Hypothetical imperatives apply to what's contingent (and particular).

    Murder is a synthetic a priori realization in how it establishes arbitrary social hierarchy, hierarchy which can be imagined by replicating oneself. How can one self be entitled to destroy another? The identity of each self fits within its own qualitative unit.

    (Also, deontology isn't utilitarianism. It isn't pain which makes murder wrong. It's incapacitation. Murder's hypocrisy comes from using rationality to destroy rationality.

    Pain is a sensational distraction which destroys rationality as well, but again, it isn't the pain itself which defines right versus wrong. For example, one person's suffering doesn't automatically entitle that person to rectification from another person who had nothing to do with it.)
    Last edited by Daktoria; 02-07-12 at 09:21 AM.

  6. #16
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,867

    Re: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria
    Kant is very explicit when describing how the analytic-synthetic dichotomy corresponds to the necessity-contingency dichotomy.
    Well...I suppose this is correct, but how does it help one get any closer to understanding your post?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria
    He's also explicit when describing how categorical imperatives only apply to what's necessary (and universal). Hypothetical imperatives apply to what's contingent (and particular).

    Murder is a synthetic a priori realization in how it establishes arbitrary social hierarchy, hierarchy which can be imagined by replicating oneself. How can one self be entitled to destroy another? The identity of each self fits within its own qualitative unit.
    Kant seems to have a much simpler route to the proposition "murder is wrong," primarily because a categorical imperative is universal. One should act, or refrain from acting, as one would see principles generalized or not. Who wants it to be a universal maxim that "murder is not wrong?" Kant would say that no one who is not utterly insane would want that. Ergo, murder is wrong. There's no need for us to delve into selves and qualitative units.

    At the same time, the proposition "murder is wrong" is hardly an analytic one, for Kant. We can only know that murder is wrong if we know what murder is. Since the existence of murder is a contingent truth, then our knowledge of murder is synthetic. Now, there are principles on which "murder is wrong" are further based, and Kant insisted those were a priori. But he unquestionably used a posteriori methods to arrive at, and understand them.

    Anyway, all of this is diverting, but overly so. Again, just what are you on about? I mentioned Liebniz and Kant because it seemed, from your verbiage, that you might be building from something one of them did. But I don't see that so far. I'm afraid I still don't understand what an analytic personality and a synthetic personality is, except that apparently synthetic personalities act like narcissistic megalomaniacs, while analytic personalities are rather more likeable. I still don't understand what makes an analytic person analytic, and a synthetic person synthetic.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

    Re: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    Well...I suppose this is correct, but how does it help one get any closer to understanding your post?
    If analysts are necessary, and synthesizers are contingent, how is it necessary to keep synthesizers around?

    Kant seems to have a much simpler route to the proposition "murder is wrong," primarily because a categorical imperative is universal. One should act, or refrain from acting, as one would see principles generalized or not. Who wants it to be a universal maxim that "murder is not wrong?" Kant would say that no one who is not utterly insane would want that. Ergo, murder is wrong. There's no need for us to delve into selves and qualitative units.
    That begs the question over the insane.

    At the same time, the proposition "murder is wrong" is hardly an analytic one, for Kant. We can only know that murder is wrong if we know what murder is. Since the existence of murder is a contingent truth, then our knowledge of murder is synthetic. Now, there are principles on which "murder is wrong" are further based, and Kant insisted those were a priori. But he unquestionably used a posteriori methods to arrive at, and understand them.

    Anyway, all of this is diverting, but overly so. Again, just what are you on about? I mentioned Liebniz and Kant because it seemed, from your verbiage, that you might be building from something one of them did. But I don't see that so far. I'm afraid I still don't understand what an analytic personality and a synthetic personality is, except that apparently synthetic personalities act like narcissistic megalomaniacs, while analytic personalities are rather more likeable. I still don't understand what makes an analytic person analytic, and a synthetic person synthetic.
    Put it this way.

    Analysts are islands.

    Synthesizers are bridges.

    Islands can build bridges to other islands, but if existing bridges get in the way, this becomes impossible. Existing bridges can also connect islands such that islands don't develop to build bridges of their own. This means in the future, islands will be addicted.

    Synthesizers can also turn islands into bridges by convincing other islands to extract everything besides what's a bridge, but if every island becomes a bridge, then there will be no islands to connect with.

    I don't know if I'd call synthesizers narcissistic. Synthesizers like other synthesizers, but they NEED analysts, and they evaluate each other based on how many analysts they have connected to them.

    Analysts don't need synthesizers, but they PREFER synthesizers when things are difficult AND boring. That way, they can get connected to other analysts who are better at handling drudgery.

    The problem is synthesizers will come in when analysts are doing something that takes a long time, claiming that it's difficult and boring, but it's not necessarily. It can also be something fun that analysts are just taking their time with. Furthermore, analysts want to formulate their own relationships with other analysts, not depend on a synthesizer to ruin the relationship formulation process...

    ...so then synthesizers will make things more difficult, claiming they're just adding to the difficulty analysts like so much, but now, they're making it more of a hassle, ruining the experience of natural exploration.

    Synthesizers just need to die. They're really evil people... but they LOVE when you say this because it's admitting they're getting on your nerves, and it's an excuse for them to take as a threat and run off to the authorities.

    I wish I knew how synthesizers exist. That way, they could be eliminated...

    ...or maybe the key is to just not know they exist? Sometimes, synthesizers don't seem to be real people. Maybe if they're forgotten enough, they just fade away.

  8. #18
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

    edited : my initial response was impertinent to subject of discussion.
    Last edited by lizzie; 02-07-12 at 09:46 PM.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  9. #19
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,867

    Re: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria
    If analysts are necessary, and synthesizers are contingent, how is it necessary to keep synthesizers around?
    Doesn't make a bit of sense to me. You mean, you think analysts are dictated to exist by the laws of logic or something?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria
    That begs the question over the insane.
    Not really. We can identify insane people by characteristics other than the specified attitude towards murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria
    Put it this way.

    Analysts are islands.

    Synthesizers are bridges.

    Islands can build bridges to other islands, but if existing bridges get in the way, this becomes impossible. Existing bridges can also connect islands such that islands don't develop to build bridges of their own. This means in the future, islands will be addicted.

    Synthesizers can also turn islands into bridges by convincing other islands to extract everything besides what's a bridge, but if every island becomes a bridge, then there will be no islands to connect with.

    I don't know if I'd call synthesizers narcissistic. Synthesizers like other synthesizers, but they NEED analysts, and they evaluate each other based on how many analysts they have connected to them.

    Analysts don't need synthesizers, but they PREFER synthesizers when things are difficult AND boring. That way, they can get connected to other analysts who are better at handling drudgery.

    The problem is synthesizers will come in when analysts are doing something that takes a long time, claiming that it's difficult and boring, but it's not necessarily. It can also be something fun that analysts are just taking their time with. Furthermore, analysts want to formulate their own relationships with other analysts, not depend on a synthesizer to ruin the relationship formulation process...

    ...so then synthesizers will make things more difficult, claiming they're just adding to the difficulty analysts like so much, but now, they're making it more of a hassle, ruining the experience of natural exploration.

    Synthesizers just need to die. They're really evil people... but they LOVE when you say this because it's admitting they're getting on your nerves, and it's an excuse for them to take as a threat and run off to the authorities.

    I wish I knew how synthesizers exist. That way, they could be eliminated...

    ...or maybe the key is to just not know they exist? Sometimes, synthesizers don't seem to be real people. Maybe if they're forgotten enough, they just fade away.
    I'm afraid I still don't get you. Look, here's an example of what I want:

    Let's suppose there's a kind of person known as a "gray." Grays are distinguished by exactly this behavior: they brushed their teeth with their left hand the last time they brushed their teeth, regardless of their handedness.

    Now, is there any question in your mind how to define a gray? There shouldn't be. I've given a simple definition, which also functions as a criterion, for exactly how to identify a gray. To know whether someone is a gray or not, you'd just observe which hand they use when they brush their teeth. If they used their left hand on the last occasion, they're a gray.

    What I want you to tell me is how I can figure out what an analyst and what a synthesyst are by some means that's fairly clear. I mean, you say some pretty disparaging things about synthesizers. They sound like really horrible people in your opinion. I'm thinking "geez, I better watch out for these guys." But I don't know who they are. They're bridges? That doesn't tell me anything. My mom is a bridge between me and my family in the eastern part of the state. That doesn't make her evil. She keeps me up to date on what happens with a couple of my cousins. I don't think she needs to die because of that.

    For instance:

    1) if analysts can build bridges, and synthesizers are bridges, analysts can build synthesizers? Are they growing them in a lab or something? Are synthesizers evil because they're don't have souls, having not been born in the usual way? If so, why aren't the analysts who grew them also evil?

    2) Or do you mean that analysts can also be bridges? If so, why is it OK for analysts to be bridges, but synthesizers not to be? Is it that the sole source of goodness among human beings is whether they perform whatever special activity it is that analysts do and synthesizers do not? If so, then surely that would be the thing to nail down, here, no?

  10. #20
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    Not really.

    The real estate bubble is probably the most obvious example of analytic-synthetic thinking. Bankers, real estate agents, and government bureaucrats are all examples of synthetic social roles.

    Pop culture and academia are some other examples.

    Nerds versus jocks is more alpha-beta thinking.
    So, you mean right vs left brained people?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •