Philosophy Discussion Forums

Scott wrote:
In this thread I want us to debate whether a priori knowledge is possible.

Some philosophers argue that some knowledge is a priori (fully independent from experience). In contrast, radical empiricists argue that all knowledge is a posteriori (derived from experience).

What do you think?

Do you think a priori knowledge is possible or not?

It depends what you consider to be knowledge.

If you look at food on the table and believe it is real,
then it is not the food that claimed reality.

It was you that chose to make yourself believe that the food is real.

That is a priori belief based on your senses.

You could have easily said I am dreaming and the food is unreal.

Does that make sense?

What is a priori knowledge? It is simply that knowledge possessing universality and necessity, i.e., it is a law of nature (also called by Kant a law of experience).

This is often conjoined with the derivation of knowledge independently of experience. If Hume was correct then knowledge cannot possess a priori necessity if derived from experience.

Knowledge of the concept "causality" was derived from experience, but not its a priori necessity. It is a form of knowledge only if made explicit, but "causality" was present in experience prior to any knowledge of it. It was present in that it makes the experience of causal relations possible at all, part and parcel of any experience of a necessary causal relationship, that is, necessary to the experience itself.

In the interest of all being on the same page, I offer this;

a priori / a posteriori

Distinction among judgments, propositions, concepts, ideas, arguments, or kinds of knowledge. In each case, the a priori is taken to be independent of sensory experience, which the a posteriori presupposes. An a priori argument, then, is taken to reason deductively from abstract general premises, while an a posteriori argument relies upon specific information derived from sense perception. The necessary truth of an a priori proposition can be determined by reason alone, but the contingent truth of an a posteriori proposition can be discovered only by reference to some matter of fact. Thus, for example:

"3 + 4 = 7." may be known a priori.

"Chicago is located on the shore of Lake Michigan." is known only a posteriori.

Rationalists typically emphasize the importance of a priori ideas and arguments in establishing genuine knowledge on a firm foundation. Kant argued that synthetic a priori judgments are preconditions for any experience and thus provide a basis for mathematical and scientific knowledge. Empiricists, on the other hand, usually hold that all a priori propositions are merely analytic, so that we must rely on a posteriori propositions for significant information about the world. Kripke challenges even the identification of this distinction with that between the necessary and the contingent.


And in this context (and others), a priori knowledge exists.

Scott wrote:In this thread I want us to debate whether a priori knowledge is possible. Some philosophers argue that some knowledge is a priori (fully independent from experience). In contrast, radical empiricists argue that all knowledge is a posteriori (derived from experience). Immanuel Kant made the distinction between analytic a priori knowledge and synthetic a priori knowledge. (An analytic proposition is one whose predicate concept is contained in its subject concept, such as "All bachelors are unmarried." And a synthetic proposition is one whose predicate concept is NOT contained in its subject, such as "All bachelors are happy.")

What do you think? Do you think a priori knowledge is possible or not? Why?


Anyway, what do you think?

A good way of showing that something is possible, is to show that it is actual. Actuality implies possibility.

Well, we all know that widows are women whose husbands have died. And once we know that "widow" means, "a woman whose husband has died" we need not further information to know that some woman whose husband has died is a widow. So, that bit of knowledge is a priori knowledge. And since we have an actual bit of a priori knowledge, it follows that a priori knowledge is possible.

Scott wrote:In this thread I want us to debate whether a priori knowledge is possible. Some philosophers argue that some knowledge is a priori (fully independent from experience).

Even that which is claimed to be self-evident is not
a priori. Indeed, we say we exist because we percieve the experience(s) we dub 'consciousness'. Upon this, all knowledge rests.

Emotions & Self Service

Human is armed with a lots of feelings. This feeling demands to be fulfilled, and we can see when it's time for a feeling must be fulfilled by looking at a gauge of feelings that are constructed by related emotional levels. If somehow our feeling needs to be fulfilled desperately then this will be reflected by related emotion at a specific level that enough to force us to do something to satisfy our feeling.

At this level, there is no need for us to make a conversation to get what we want (but may be further). An imbalance within us is enough to make us to be guided by our emotions to seek for something to balance what is needed by us.

What is proposition?

Dependency of Proposition

A proposition is constructed to understand realities (existences), and existences can be perceived by us because it's functionality, therefore nodes of a proposition are exist as functions.

For anything that exist has functionality in between two possibilities, which are dependence to something else or not dependence to something else.

Therefore, a proposition is nodes of functions that formed as a series of dependence

Propositions related to emotions

Related to emotions, a proposition is nodes of functions that formed as a series of dependence, where its nodes of dependency can be considered as a route for an emotion to go to something to get what we need to satisfy our feeling.

What is knowledge?

Knowledge is what possibly useful facts for us. It's theoretically to be true for our usefulness, but we aren't proving it yet. So a knowledge may be denied.

Whether we saw an implementation of knowledge was useful for someone else but until we can confirm it for ourselves to see how for a knowledge could increase our survival or our enjoyment, this knowledge is just theoretical for our own selves.

Now, we are trying to go deeper into ourselves

From Emotions goes to Propositions as Knowledge

Since a knowledge is what possibly useful facts for us, then a knowledge may be represented by a proposition that strongly related to our useful experiences that was provided by our emotions. Because this kind of proposition is strongly related to seeking actions (triggered by emotions) from one node to another node within sequence of dependency that proven as useful facts (experiences) for us, personally.

Our emotions have ability to construct a simplest form of proposition (not shareable). This is the first level of proposition that further through our social interaction can be directed to construct a language and further to provide a conversation.

AT FIRST, the nature of emotions can provide series of actions that may be considered as forms of propositions, and this proposition represents a useful experience, therefore, the nature of emotions can be considered as something that can gain knowledge (which is not shareable as language within conversation to another conscious being). FURTHER, through interaction and teaching from other conscious being, this may be developed as language that capable to provide conversation.

It's a knowledge (found) by emotions through experiences, it's emotions meet experiences", it's a posteriori knowledge.

--------------- At this level, a knowledge can be provided without having conversation. ---------------

Again, we are trying to go deeper and deeper into ourselves

What is aware of something? And how far for emotions lead us to perceive something?

Aware of something is perceive differences. And the nature of emotions have ability to force us to seek for something that we need to satisfy our feeling. Emotions are forcing us to seek something by perceive differences.

Perceive differences provides a simple knowledge which is perceive fact about something is different to others. It's similar to self assertion that this is not that (the simplest knowledge).

Perceive differences to make sure whether something is different to others can be provided by trying to look at the suitability in between the observed object and a pattern inside ourselves. This internal pattern has its own restriction to make sure whether there is a boundary in between the two things to identify "there is something different in between the two things".

--------------- At this level, a knowledge can be provided (not only) without the need of conversation, but a knowledge can be provided just by perceive something and see the differences. This knowledge may be considered closer to a priori, but it's not a priori yet. It's still a posteriori knowledge because we need to perceive something. ---------------

If that so, then where is a priori knowledge? or is there a priori knowledge? and what is it look like a priori knowledge?

We were trying to trace on any surfaces within ourselves. We tried to find where was something that could be considered as the source of a priori knowledge. And there is only one left behind, it's our feelings. Feeling that made us aware there was something exist within ourselves.

When "I was hungry" then actually we gained knowledge by perceiving a changing of different kind of feelings, from "i was feeling something (other than hungry)" changing to "i was hungry". When "I was sad" then actually we gained knowledge by perceiving a changing of different kind of feelings from "i was feeling something (other than sad)" changing to "i was sad". Further it can be formed as "At that time there was me aware of something". "At that time i had to do something". "At that time i confirmed that there was my feeling and it had to be satisfied".

Is a priori knowledge possible? Yes, as far as we perceive the differences of changes to our feelings. It's the first knowledge which soon will be advanced to create a posteriori knowledge when there is a chance.

Belinda wrote:Formal logic is not real knowledge. Like mathematics, it's a simplification and abstraction from natural language.

I would argue the opposite. Formal logic and mathematics are not abstractions from natural language (I would presume you by 'natural language mean real evolved languages and not e.g. conlangs and other consciously consceive ones). I'd as stated say the opposite, human languages are abstractions from formal logic (and it's derivations inc. mathematics), and not the other way around. By this I mean that formal logic is the closest we humans can get to an absolute objective language for all communication, languages on the other hand are vulgarizations of this ultimate language which has been malformed and soiled by human attribute inc. our nature and neurological predispositions.

It is my understanding that a priori is not knowledge but cognition, impressions derived by reasoning from axiomatic ethereal sensation, (from earlier) before knowledge. The opposite of empirical knowledge. sensuous impression. And yes, of course it's possible.

I have a hard time believing that any sort of "knowing", regardless of whether is it actually true or not, is possible before any experience. In other words, if one has no experiences whatsoever, one cannot in principle come to know anything.

Actually knowing something to be actually true before experience goes a step even beyond that.

In the past there have been some that have held that mathematical and logical truths may be a priori knowledge, but how one could come to know any sort of mathematical or logical truth before all experience I believe would be hard to argue.

It is possible to guess from the laws of science what something or event may be like. The probability of this being correct may not differ that much from some data collection. But to guess from using the laws of science is to know something about the laws of science so is it merely a different type of guessing from experience ? That is we use our knowledge of some things that have similarities to construct a theory about an unknown something or event.

a priori knowledge at first glance is an oxymoron.
Generally knowledge is based on experience (i.e. a posteriori), either of the individual or that of humanity.

However as it is philosophy, getting picky, or perhaps detailed and refined are natural and necessary.
To be more precise and for more utility, philosophers has to break down the 'knowledge' set into the following;
(knowledge in this case = information and facts of reality)

1. a priori - knowledge prior to human existence - e.g. all events has a cause, non-empirical, purely reason,
2. a priori - knowledge prior to the individual being born - instincts, the above.
3. a posteriori - knowledge based on the experience of humanity - the empirical
4. a posteriori - knowledge based on the experience of the individual.

All the above (where non-contradictory) relate to fact and reality.
Thus it is not a question of whether a priori knowledge is possible, it is a question of whether one or a group agreeing to the above definitions and categories prior to any philosophical discussion.
If one agree, then go ahead with the discussion, if not, then avoid discussing the concept of the 'a priori' altogether.

Personally, I believe the concept of 'a priori' is VERY necessary for more refined philosophical issues on reality.

Spectrum wrote:1. a priori - knowledge prior to human existence - e.g. all events has a cause, non-empirical, purely reason,
2. a priori - knowledge prior to the individual being born - instincts, the above.

A priori shouldn't be confused with innate. A-priori knowledge is supposed to be knowledge that can be justified independently from experience, so the question is not how the knowledge was acquired (like whether you were born with it), but on what basis it is justified. So on this understanding, even if people were born with innate beliefs about the world (like believing that Paris is the capital of France or whatever) it wouldn't count as a priori knowledge, or any knowledge for that matter, because they would lack the necessary justification for their beliefs (even if their beliefs happened to be true).

Fafner88 wrote:

Spectrum wrote:1. a priori - knowledge prior to human existence - e.g. all events has a cause, non-empirical, purely reason,
2. a priori - knowledge prior to the individual being born - instincts, the above.

A priori shouldn't be confused with innate. A-priori knowledge is supposed to be knowledge that can be justified independently from experience, so the question is not how the knowledge was acquired (like whether you were born with it), but on what basis it is justified. So on this understanding, even if people were born with innate beliefs about the world (like believing that Paris is the capital of France or whatever) it wouldn't count as a priori knowledge, or any knowledge for that matter, because they would lack the necessary justification for their beliefs (even if their beliefs happened to be true).

As I had stated, other than convention, it is a matter of consensus.

I think my throwing in of "instincts" was too general.
Note 'instincts' are independent of a person's experience (a posteriori),
A baby 'knowing' how to suckle is not based on its experience.
If these instincts are not a posteriori, they are likely to be a priori.
Such knowledge can be justified by subsequent experience.

Generally in philosophical discussions instincts (more to psychology and biology) are not discussed as a priori, however, there is room where necessary to bring innate knowledge as a priori. Note Biology of Reason by Cooper.

Instincts which are independent of anyone's experience by this definition are a priori.
It is just a question of whether we agree to use it for any specific philosophical issue.

Fafner wrote:

A priori shouldn't be confused with innate. A-priori knowledge is supposed to be knowledge that can be justified independently from experience, so the question is not how the knowledge was acquired (like whether you were born with it), but on what basis it is justified. So on this understanding, even if people were born with innate beliefs about the world (like believing that Paris is the capital of France or whatever) it wouldn't count as a priori knowledge, or any knowledge for that matter, because they would lack the necessary justification for their beliefs (even if their beliefs happened to be true).

So is one example of a-priori knowledge the knowledge that within plane geometry a straight line is the shortest distance between two points? If this and this alone is the sort of thing, i.e. logic and maths, that is a-priori, then this is like the Platonists' claim that there be eternal forms, in my example the axioms of plane geometry would be eternal forms typical of the a-priori.

Belinda wrote:So is one example of a-priori knowledge the knowledge that within plane geometry a straight line is the shortest distance between two points? If this and this alone is the sort of thing, i.e. logic and maths, that is a-priori, then this is like the Platonists' claim that there be eternal forms, in my example the axioms of plane geometry would be eternal forms typical of the a-priori.

Yes, mathematics and geometry are obvious candidates for being known a-priori, because it seems that observation isn't required for mathematical or geometrical proofs but only reason. It doesn't prove Platonism though.

-- Updated April 28th, 2014, 1:26 pm to add the following --

Spectrum wrote:Generally in philosophical discussions instincts (more to psychology and biology) are not discussed as a priori, however, there is room where necessary to bring innate knowledge as a priori. Note Biology of Reason by Cooper.

Instincts which are independent of anyone's experience by this definition are a priori.
It is just a question of whether we agree to use it for any specific philosophical issue.

You can define anything as you want but it's not philosophically interesting to call instincts a priori knowledge (and no one uses the term like that so you are just creating confusion). The kind of knowledge that interests philosophers is knowledge which is based on reflectively accessible reasons, and small children lack them since they can't give reasons for what they believe. And besides, behavioral instincts like sucking are not even propositional knowledge ("John believes that ...") which is what mainly interests philosophers. So the question is whether there is genuine knowledge about the world which can be acquired solely by abstract reasoning, not whether people are born with certain instincts which isn't a question in philosophy and isn't interesting from a philosophical point of view.