 Many philosophers have hoped that the apparent necessity and a priori status of the claims of logic, mathematics and much of philosophy could be explained by their claims being analytic, our understanding of the meaning of the claims explaining why they seemed to be true “in all possible worlds,” and knowable to be so, “independently of experience.” This view led many of them to regard philosophy as consisting in large part in the “analysis” of the meanings of the relevant claims, words and  concepts;[1]  i.e., a provision of conditions that were individually necessary and jointly sufficient for the application of a word or concept, in the way that, for example, being a female and being a parent are each necessary and together sufficient for being a mother. Such a conception seemed to invite and support (although we’ll see it doesn’t entail) the special methodology of “armchair reflection” on concepts in which many philosophers traditionally engaged, independently of any empirical research.