ⓘ Conceptual distinctions ..

A priori and a posteriori

The Latin phrases a priori and a posteriori are philosophical terms popularized by Immanuel Kants Critique of Pure Reason, one of the most influential works in the history of philosophy. However, in their Latin forms they appear in Latin translations of Euclids Elements, of about 300 BC, a work widely considered during the early European modern period as the model for precise thinking. These terms are used with respect to reasoning epistemology to distinguish "necessary conclusions from first premises" i.e., what must come before sense observation from "conclusions based on sense observati ...

Analytic–synthetic distinction

The analytic–synthetic distinction is a semantic distinction, used primarily in philosophy to distinguish propositions into two types: analytic propositions and synthetic propositions. Analytic propositions are true by virtue of their meaning, while synthetic propositions are true by how their meaning relates to the world. However, philosophers have used the terms in very different ways. Furthermore, philosophers have debated whether there is a legitimate distinction.

Apollonian and Dionysian

The Apollonian and Dionysian is a philosophical and literary concept and dichotomy/dialectic, based on Apollo and Dionysus in Greek mythology. Some Western philosophical and literary figures have invoked this dichotomy in critical and creative works, most notably Friedrich Nietzsche and later followers. In Greek mythology, Apollo and Dionysus are both sons of Zeus. Apollo is the god of the sun, of rational thinking and order, and appeals to logic, prudence and purity. Dionysus is the god of wine and dance, of irrationality and chaos, and appeals to emotions and instincts. The Ancient Greek ...

Argument-deduction-proof distinctions

An argument, more fully a premise-conclusion argument, is a two-part system composed of premises and conclusion. An argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is a consequence of its premises. Every premise set has infinitely many consequences each giving rise to a valid argument. Some consequences are obviously so but most are not: most are hidden consequences. Most valid arguments are not yet known to be valid. To determine validity in non-obvious cases deductive reasoning is required. There is no deductive reasoning in an argument per se ; such must come from the outside. Every arg ...

Distinction (philosophy)

Distinction, the fundamental philosophical abstraction, involves the recognition of difference. In classical philosophy, there were various ways in which things could be distinguished. The merely logical or virtual distinction, such as the difference between concavity and convexity, involves the mental apprehension of two definitions, but which cannot be realized outside the mind, as any concave line would be a convex line considered from another perspective. A real distinction involves a level of ontological separation, as when squirrels are distinguished from llamas for no squirrel is a ...

Distinction without a difference

A distinction without a difference is a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker attempts to describe a distinction between two things where no discernible difference exists. It is particularly used when a word or phrase has connotations associated with it that one party to an argument prefers to avoid.