Q&A: Between an A Priori Contradiction and an Analytic Contradiction
Between an A Priori Contradiction and an Analytic Contradiction
Question
Rabbi, hello,
In the book Two Wagons and a Hot-Air Balloon, you distinguish between two kinds of contradictions: an analytic contradiction and an a priori contradiction. You then argue that belief in an analytic contradiction is meaningless, whereas an a priori contradiction can have meaning. In this way, you allow one to believe in knowledge and free choice without falling into a meaningless statement or having to give up one of the assumptions.
I don’t understand: how is it even possible to conceive of an a priori contradiction and say that it has meaning at all? Why is it “okay” to believe in contradictions of that kind?
I would be happy for a clearer explanation of the difference between these kinds of contradictions.
Thank you
Answer
Hello,
It’s hard for me to explain it here in greater detail than I did in the book.
In any case, see a fuller discussion here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%A1%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%90-%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA1/