As a result, while synthetic judgments are informative, they must be justified by referring to external or outside principles.
On this theme, Kant begins by supposing that both Hume and Leibniz had not properly between the two distinct forms of judgment and that, in fact, they had made only one distinction, which was the difference between uninformative truths on the basis of pure reason and factual matters on the basis of sensory experience (Kant 37). Kant argues that the two distinctions were not wholly coextensive. also stating that all four combinations that are logically possible should be taken into consideration. The first combination, analytic a posteriori judgments, is not logical because one does not need to use experience in order to support an assertion that is purely explicative. Secondly, synthetic a posteriori judgments would be considered as generally uncontroversial facts that humans come to know of because of their sensory experience (Kant &. Hatfield 45). Thirdly, analytic a priori judgments are those that are necessarily true because they include all straightforward definitions and merely logical truths. Finally, synthetic a priori judgments can be considered as the most crucial case from Kant’s arguments, specifically because they can only provide necessarily true new information.