• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Analysis Is to Synthesis as Good Is to Bad?

What's the relationship?

  • Analysts are good, synthesizers are bad.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Synthesizers are good, analysts are bad.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Daktoria

Banned
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
397
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
The way I've always judged good versus bad is whether or not a person avoids hierarchy.

Analytic propositions are independent. They don't depend on anything, and they don't make anything depend on them.

Synthetic propositions are dependent. They depend on analysis, and socially speaking, they can make analysis depend on them.

In other words, an analyst is someone who doesn't step on someone else's boundaries.

A synthesizer is someone who does, but synthesizers usually win social games because they bring analysts together.

In effect, a synthetic society becomes an addiction. Analysts can't interact without going through synthesizers, and over time, analysts will forget how to interact altogether, depending on synthesizers to get along.

The one argument I've ever seen advocating legitimately for synthesizers is analysts are boring. Analysts get stuck on foundations, and they don't know how to elevate society to greater levels of excitement, so synthesizers are needed for this...

...but the problem here is it assumes analysts want greater levels of excitement, and each analyst didn't necessarily create each synthesizer, so there's no necessary responsibility to be entertained.

Are analysts good and synthesizers bad, or is it the other way around?
 
I think I speak for the rest of the forum in me saying "huh?"
 
False dichotomy. All positions are dependent upon external factors.
 
The way I've always judged good versus bad is whether or not a person avoids hierarchy.

Analytic propositions are independent. They don't depend on anything, and they don't make anything depend on them.

Synthetic propositions are dependent. They depend on analysis, and socially speaking, they can make analysis depend on them.

In other words, an analyst is someone who doesn't step on someone else's boundaries.

A synthesizer is someone who does, but synthesizers usually win social games because they bring analysts together.

In effect, a synthetic society becomes an addiction. Analysts can't interact without going through synthesizers, and over time, analysts will forget how to interact altogether, depending on synthesizers to get along.

The one argument I've ever seen advocating legitimately for synthesizers is analysts are boring. Analysts get stuck on foundations, and they don't know how to elevate society to greater levels of excitement, so synthesizers are needed for this...

...but the problem here is it assumes analysts want greater levels of excitement, and each analyst didn't necessarily create each synthesizer, so there's no necessary responsibility to be entertained.

Are analysts good and synthesizers bad, or is it the other way around?

Sounds like "switch" to me. That would be when you stick one thumb in your mouth and the other in your rectum and when someone says "switch", that's what you do. The synthesis subjected to analysis could leave a bad taste in one's mouth.
 
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.
 
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 categorical imperative was predicated on how people are rational such that we only act without contradiction.

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.
 
Last edited:
50285_272396358171_1287628_n.jpg

Sorry but the OP does not make sense.
 
The categorical imperative was predicated on how people are rational such that we only act without contradiction.

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.

Are you trying to say roughly this:

analyzers determine their own positions
synthesizers determine their positions from the people or things around them?
 
Are you trying to say roughly this:

analyzers determine their own positions
synthesizers determine their positions from the people or things around them?

That's half of it.

The other half is synthesizers make analysts dependent on them. Synthesizers bring analysts together, so they excel at social games.

In turn, analysts "learn" to be alienated from one another, so they need synthesizers more and more into the future. They'll even suck up to synthesizers and humiliate themselves in order to compete for synthesizer attention.
 
That's half of it.

The other half is synthesizers make analysts dependent on them. Synthesizers bring analysts together, so they excel at social games.

In turn, analysts "learn" to be alienated from one another, so they need synthesizers more and more into the future. They'll even suck up to synthesizers and humiliate themselves in order to compete for synthesizer attention.

nerds vs jocks? (to put it in highschool terms)
 
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.
 
Daktoria said:
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.

Daktoria said:
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:
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.
 
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:
Daktoria said:
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?

Daktoria said:
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.
 
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.
 
edited : my initial response was impertinent to subject of discussion.
 
Last edited:
Daktoria said:
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?

Daktoria said:
That begs the question over the insane.

Not really. We can identify insane people by characteristics other than the specified attitude towards murder.

Daktoria said:
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?
 
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?
 
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?

By saying analysts are necessary, I was just saying analysts formulate the foundations by which rational relationships can exist.

This doesn't mean analysts must exist, but just that society depends on them. Analysts aren't obligated to serve society. If anything, that's what I'm opposing here.

Not really. We can identify insane people by characteristics other than the specified attitude towards murder.

Characteristics ring of the qualitative unit.

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?

A bridge is an object, not a subject. Synthesizers are self-objectifying, yet they are still asking for respect.

It's pretty easy to distinguish between an analyst and a synthesizer. An analyst is someone who can imagine in advance of experience (correspondence). A synthesizer is someone who can only connect ideas after experience (cohesion).

The most questionable circumstance I can think of is the case of children because some would argue children are inherently synthetic. They depend on their parents, and they learn from experimentation...

...but I'm not sure about this assessment. The real question is whether or not a child is curious. Does a child seek out necessity-contingency relationships to complete systems, or does a child just stubbornly gravitate towards what's emotionally appealing?

If a child seeks out relationships, that means a child is thinking for one's self in the experimentation process. If a child gravitates, that means a child is taking particular possibilities for granted.

You have to be very observant in social circumstances, though, when testing for this. A lot of children will just piggyback and extrapolate on top of others, not thinking for themselves, but appearing to do so. You'll notice I used the word "relationship" before. Synthesizers will exploit this and claim by socializing, they're seeking out relationships, but in reality, they're not. What synthesizers are doing is playing games, not actually creating value by which relationships can be established, but rather only taking other people's discoveries and putting them together.

Synthesizers will also aim to enslave analysts in encouraging (or teasing) analysts to be productive, but not actually being productive themselves. Synthesizers will also give analysts superficial complements and harsh ridicule in accordance with performance, but they won't actually associate with analysts on a personal level. They won't include analysts in their activities despite how analysts contribute so much.

I think synthesizers look at analysts as computers in this sense. On one hand, synthesizers take advantage of how analysts can be made anxious easily into doing work, but on the other, synthesizers have no interest in being casual with the anxious.

Synthesizers just don't care. They're very cruel people.
 
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.

Do you really mean what I bolded in your post above? Seriously?
 
Daktoria,

I'm afraid you've utterly lost me. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, what kinds of people you're talking about, what is supposed to separate one group from another, or etc. If it was just me that was mystified, here, I'd assume that perhaps I am simply dense. However, it appears that the other respondents to this thread are also having considerable trouble trying to figure out what you're saying (anyone, feel free to chime in and correct me if I'm wrong, though if so, I'd appreciate an explanation of the OP in different words). The best I can make of what you're saying is that you've misapplied a couple of words for good people and bad people. Unless you can be completely clear about what a synthesizer is and what an analyzer is, and just what separates them, there's no point in further discussion.
 
Back
Top Bottom