In this paper I defend the concept of metaphysical analyticity, and argue for the no-tion of analyticity as truth in virtue of the reference determiner, introduced by Gillian K. Russell. Contrary to Russell, I try to show that necessary a posteriori statements are analytic under this notion. Also, I maintain that contingent a priori statements cannot be properly called analytic.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.