u/Pyrovens

I’m reading through the CPR and I’m confused as to whether analytic judgments (or judgments in general) are cognitions or not.

I thought judgments were a kind of proposition-cognition with a subject and a predicate, where in analytic judgments the concept of the predicate is contained within the subject and in synthetic judgments it isn‘t.

But I’m confused since cognition for Kant requires intuition and concepts, but analytic judgments don’t require intuition. So analytic judgments aren’t cognitions? This would make sense since they don’t add to our knowledge. If this is true, then judgments in general aren’t all cognitions since the analytic ones aren’t.

Are they cognitions or not? What am I getting wrong here?

The Qur'an: A Historical-Critical Introduction by Nicolai Sinai

Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature by Muhammad Mustafa Azmi

Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam by Fred Donner

Does anyone have recommendations for up to date books that analyze the Quran and the history of early Islam from a more critical lens? I was reading about the revisionist school of Islamic studies and I found it very interesting; I was planning on buying one of Crone’s books but I decided against it because most of its conclusions aren’t generally accepted today from what I hear.

It doesn’t need to specifically be from / directly associated with the revisionist school of Islamic studies, I just want a resource that doesn’t take things like hadith for granted.

Thanks

What are the strongest objections to Descartes' argument he makes in the third meditation?

I haven’t looked into any reading about theories of truth yet but I’m curious on this point before going into it

How would one go about defending a theory of truth? It would be nonsensical to say this or that theory of truth is true or false, right? Since they’re defining what these things mean in the first place? I guess what I mean is how would one go about selecting a theory of truth and when they do select it what do they take it to be? True? Correct? Accurate?

Sorry if this sounds super stupid

What are the main differences between these two? Particularly their ideas about language games for Witt and linguistic frameworks for Carnap? I’m reading about them and they seem very very similar

Title basically

From what I know ethics and morality are pretty much the same but some philosophers differentiate the two and use different definitions but its mostly specific to their work or tradition. Is this correct?

Also what differentiates any regular normative claim or imperative from an ethical claim or ethical imperative?