Abstract

The study aims to show that the Kantian distinction of synthetic and analytical resolution of the courts is originally epistemic and not purely logical. Proof of this proposition is done so that in the first step are distinguished two types of synthetic and analytical predicate relation to the subject - logical-semantic and epistemic. Furthermore, the examples demonstrated that Kant was familiar cases in courts, which are found only logico-semantic synthetic or analytic connection of concepts in trials. Consequently, Kant care for them and are therefore not in terms classifiable Critique of Pure Reason, Kant even offers a way to understand its logic and Prolegomena. Based on various Kant notes offered by Article resolution three types of synthetic courts and courts of two kinds of analysis. The final part of the article is devoted to a brief outline of the relationship of epistemic and epistemic-synthetic-analytic courts, because the courts are due to which Kant its resolution synthetic and analytical courts instituted . Shown is both preferred synthesis of ideas before analysis, first, how Kant based his teachings on unum, verum, bonum featured specific tasks analysis concepts. article is supplemented by a short reflection on Kant's definition of the principle of the dispute and by showing a significant difference between Kant and Bolzano definition of analytic courts, whose oversight can lead to misunderstanding the context in which resolution synthetic and analytical courts in Kant belongs