=Analytic and synthetic judgments.=[246]--“All analytic judgments depend wholly on the law of contradiction, and are in their nature _a priori_ cognitions, whether the concepts that supply them with matter be empirical or not. For the predicate of an affirmative analytic judgment is already contained in the concept of the subject, of which it cannot be denied without contradiction. In the same way its opposite is necessarily denied of the subject in an analytic, but negative, judgment by the same law of contradiction.... For this very reason all analytic judgments are _a priori_ even when the concepts are empirical, as, for example, gold is a yellow metal; for to know this I require no experience beyond my concept of gold as a yellow metal: it is, in fact, the very concept, and I need only analyse it, without looking beyond it elsewhere.... [Synthetic judgments, _a posteriori_ and _a priori_] agree in this, that they cannot possibly spring solely from the principle of analysis, the law of contradiction. They require a quite different principle. From whatever they may be deduced, the deduction must, it is true, always be in accordance with the principle of contradiction. For that principle must never be violated. But at the same time everything cannot be deduced from it.”[247] In A 594 = B 622 analytic judgments are also spoken of as identical; but in the _Fortschritte_[248] this use of terms is criticised: “Judgments are analytic if their predicate only represents clearly (_explicite_) what was thought obscurely (_implicite_) in the concept of the subject, _e.g._ all bodies are extended. Were we to call such judgments identical only confusion would result. For identical judgments contribute nothing to the clearness of the concept, and that must be the purpose of all judging. Identical judgments are therefore empty, _e.g._ all bodies are bodily (or to use another term material) beings. Analytic judgments do, indeed, ground themselves upon identity and can be resolved into it; but they are not identical. For they demand analysis and serve for the explanation of the concept. In identical judgments, on the other hand, _idem_ is defined _per idem_, and nothing at all is explained.” Vaihinger[249] cites the following contrasted examples of analytic and synthetic judgments: _Analytic._--(_a_) Substance is that which exists only as subject in which qualities inhere.[250] (_b_) Every effect has a cause.[5] (_c_) Everything conditioned presupposes a condition. _Synthetic._--(_a_) Substance is permanent. (_b_) Every event has a cause.[251] (=c=) Everything conditioned presupposes an unconditioned.