Abstracts

Kantian Analytic Judgments and datiyat al-Mahmool Propositions:
A Comparative Study

Ahmad Abu Turabi

In Western philosophy, analytic judgments have undergone different definitions. According to Kant, analytic judgments have the same subject and predicate, that is, predicate concept is contained in the subject, a definition very similar with that of datiyat al-Mahmool propositions (propositions with isagogic essentials as their predicates). The comparison of these two definitions is, however faced with certain basic problems which are as follows:

a) The discussion of essentials came into being primarily in reference with the discussion of essence.

b) Essentials are part of essence, not all of it.

c) Discussion on essentials is more of ontological nature than of any thing else; for it was basically propounded to solve the problem of definitions.

d) Last but not least, the discussion on the essentials is relevant only to categorical propositions. The present writing tries to show that Muslim logicians have overcome these problems. Today, however, many Western philosophers have given up Kant's definition of analytic judgments making it more general than what Kant had primarily in his mind. It has to be noted here that any definition other than Kant’s, is not comparable with that of proposition with the essentials as their predicates, but with that of isagogic essentials.

«211»