| This dissertation presents an alternative account of analyticity, as well as arguments for that account. Although an analysis and interpretation of previous accounts of analyticity are presented, the focus is on the analysis of, and the arguments for a solution to, the philosophical problem of the existence of analyticities. The consideration of classical and contemporary texts provides a context for the alternative account of analyticity presented, and the analysis of the arguments against previous accounts of analyticity serve to demonstrate both the need for an alternative account and the means by which it avoids the problems inherent in the previous accounts.;The dissertation begins with an initial argument for the philosophical significance of analyticity, as many have questioned its role. This is followed by an exposition and analysis of the origins and variations of the analytic/synthetic distinction in the writings of Locke, Leibniz, Hume, and Kant. As the conventionalist account of analyticity has had a considerable number of adherents, and as it has been the focus of much of the criticism of the analytic/synthetic distinction, the dissertation includes a presentation of the two primary forms of these conventionalist accounts. This sets the stage for an in-depth analysis of Quine's arguments against the analytic/synthetic distinction. With the responses to these arguments serving to clear the deck, the alternative account of analyticity is presented along with the status and implications of analyticity, concluding with the arguments for the notion of analyticity offered in this account. |
