RB 65

authority to test the formal structures of judgments, as analysis works negatively. The only facts that analytic judgments can prove are those telling us what cannot be.Analytic judgments test the validity of empirical judgments and falsify empirical judgments, but cannot verify the same. Logic is a science incapable of proving anything beyond the formal rules of thought, and the analytic judgment lacks the power to verify the factual truth of a judgment. Hence, any synthetic claims based upon analytic operations are impossible. The kernel of the problem of synthetic knowledge a priori is that this notion itself involves a true contradiction concerning the relationship between the synthetic judgment a priori and the external world. Moreover, the sensible world is a world wherein the analytic judgment has nothing to say with regard to the actual conditions of this world. The analytic judgment merely helps arrange our sensations of external reality in an intelligible manner. So regardless of whether we are speaking of synthetic a priori judgments or of synthetic a posteriori judgments they must both refer to objects or sensible reality, whereby the analytical nature of the synthetic a priori becomes superfluous at best, and contradictory at worst. In his attempt to finish Immanuel Kant’s efforts to solve the problems regarding the objectivity of knowledge Hägerström abandons the transcendentalist views he once adopted from Kant, and substitutes it for a new epistemological perspective.Thus, Hägerström considers himself to have developed a new theory of epistemology,82 so radically different from Kant’s that Hägerström considered himself to have performed yet another “kopernikanische Umwälzung in der Erkenntnistheorie.”83 One aspect of Hägerp a r t i 1 , c h a p t e r 2 60 2 . 3 the obj ect ivi ty of knowledge 82 Hägerström, Selbstdarstellungen, pp. 1-5. 83 Hägerström, P. d.W., p. 77. “The Copernican Revolution in Epistemology.” However, Bjarup contends that Hägerström’s claim to have performed yet another revolution in philosophy was unwarranted, as different interpretations of the revolution