Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Cugoano]

Transcendental synthetic Apriori knowledge is our intuitive awareness of the conditions that make knowledge possible (space, time, substance, quantity, quality, unity, plurality, etc....). It is not only possible, it is also necessary for making sense or giving meaning to our experiences and concepts. Sorry, if I am repeating anything already posted. It did not read the entire string.

[Quotidian]

Only a rational being would recognize irrationality.

[Obvious Leo]

Only a rational being would recognize irrationality.

Not always I think.


Also. Only a highly rational being is capable of irrationality which he can reason to be otherwise.

[Quotidian]

Only a highly rational being is capable of irrationality which he can reason to be otherwise.

...which is what I said.

[Grotto19]

Biologically our brains are “wired” to interpret phenomena a certain way. But to make this interpretation there must be some fundamental means to do so. This could be considered a priori knowledge, but I prefer to think of it as a lens by which we interpret the phenomena. Everything we dwell on has been focused through this lens. So it seems that we cannot truly contemplate anything which is truly a priori because experiences had to occur to lead to that perception, however it could also be said that nothing is fully posteriori as it was all deciphered via our base a priori programming.

In other words no thought we are aware of comes without prior experiences leading to that thought, but there must be a core base of knowledge or interpretation which allows us to encode and understand our early experiences on which we extrapolate the latter ones. So that a priori wiring is necessary and dictates what the posteriori will eventually conceive of. Even the most advanced concepts, seven layers removed in speculation from anything one has experienced, ultimately could not have occurred without an a priori perceptual base and thus are not independent of it as it both necessarily required it and was molded by it.

[Quotidian]

I don't think that it is rational to posit reason as a consequence solely of biological adaption. It purports to 'explain' reason, however it looses sight of the fact that it the capacity to reason that gives rise to the ability to create such sciences as 'biology'. If you say that our rational ability is simply the outcome of adaptive necessity, it sells reason short, by making it a function of something else, namely 'survival'. Darwinian rationalists such as Daniel Dennett do this all the time - whilst depicting themselves as 'champions of reason' they actually believe that reason itself can be reduced to the exigencies of survival.

Reason disavows its own primacy and professes to be a mere servant of natural selection. On the surface, this new empirical reason seems more humble toward nature than the reason of the metaphysical tradition. Actually, however, it is arrogant, practical mind riding roughshod over the ‘useless spiritual,’ and dismissing any view of nature in which the latter is taken to be more than a stimulus to human activity. The effects of this view are not confined to modern philosophy.

[Obvious Leo]

Although I'm not a fan of this language usage some theorists in non-linear dynamic systems theory extend the notion of cognition to all matter, both living and non-living, which effectively just makes it analogous to cause and effect. They manage to reason this quite elegantly and at a stretch one could extend the idea to the notion of a priori knowledge. Personally I find it cumbersome and unwieldy and so far beyond our ordinary definitions that I can't see them sticking with it, but the idea might yet evolve into something a little more intuitive.

Regards Leo

[Belinda]

Only a rational being would recognize irrationality.

Not always I think.


Also. Only a highly rational being is capable of irrationality which he can reason to be otherwise.

The even more rational being has insight into her own human failing of rationalising what she has been and will be. ***********************

How could it be possible to believe in a priori knowledge and not also to believe in God the ultimate a priori? The only a priori is 'synthetic a priori' ,or alternatively a priori within a closed system.

[Spectrum]

How could it be possible to believe in a priori knowledge and not also to believe in God the ultimate a priori? The only a priori is 'synthetic a priori' ,or alternatively a priori within a closed system.

The idea of God do not comply with the concept of 'a priori synthetic' because 'God' is a vacuous idea and as such there is 'nothing' that can be synthesized a priori and subsequently be verified.
Therefore no God a priori is possible as real existence.
The only accessible God is one that is relied upon by faith, not a priori synthetic knowledge.

There are a priori synthetic knowledge of Science and Mathematics.
Science and Mathematical cognitions are sensible with intuitions a priori thus not empty, therefrom can be synthesized/combined a priori with their respective concepts and thereafter be verified empirically.

[Belinda]

Spectrum what you write, above, endorses what I wrote.

[Wayne92587]

Man has the ability to make sense, to attain knowledge, priori knowledge, of Realities that can not be experience in the Usual, normal way, Realties that can not be experience by way of the five senses, Reality that can only be experience as a Affect; such realities being uncaused,

Knowledge of Realities that are not derived by through experience, knowledge gleaned through the use of thin Single Eye; the only problem being that if thine Single eye be filled with darkness how great, Absolutely Bad, then is the Knowledge within; Absolute Bad Knowledge, knowledge of Reality having a dual quality, the knowledge of Good and Evil being the greatest cause of All Evil, Guilefulness, duplicity, deception, the misconception of the Truth, a Lie.

-- Updated August 21st, 2015, 7:55 am to add the following --

Only a highly rational being is capable of irrationality which he can reason to be otherwise.


Wayne wrote;

A highly rational being it to smart to be irrational.

[LuckyR]

Of course a priori "knowledge" exists, though some will argue that it doesn't meet the definition of knowledge since it is not personal experience based, that is, to my mind a semantic issue, not a logic one.

In animals we call a priori knowledge "instinct". We don't use that term much in people though it definitely exists. Depending on your perspective though one could make the philosophical argument (did I really just say that?) that even instinct (a priori knowledge) does come from experience, just not the individual's experience, since it is the accumulated experience of generations as passed along through DNA.

[Wayne92587]

Animal Instinct not being priori Knowledge, animal instinct simply being the easiest reaction to a situation, the Herd Instinct, not to say that Man is the only creature to learn from experience; Animal Instinct simply being a reaction rather than a response; reaction for some animals, being repetitive seemingly to be instinctual, being nothing more than a conditioned response.

I do not believe that knowledge is based upon person experience; I do however believe that it is based upon experience; I would say that knowledge can also be based upon reason; reason however also being the source of Absolutely Bad Knowledge, knowledge having a dual quality.

Absolutely Bad Knowledge being partially true, based upon a Half-Truth, Absolutely Bad Knowledge born of reason, conjecture, speculation, theory alone, having a dual quality, being mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge, Absolutely Bad Knowledge being given two Names (even though the two are the same); as Absolutely Bad Knowledge issues forth from its Single Source, the Rational mind; Absolutely Bad, having a dual quality being defined as the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Knowledge having a dual quality, Absolutely Bad Knowledge, the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Knowledge born of Reason alone, speculation, conjecture; the Rational Mind, the Conscious Mind exclusive of Experience, being the source of all Unnecessary Suffering, the Greatest Cause of all suffering.

Priori Knowledge is not born of Reason or Instinct alone,

Priori Knowledge being born of a Finely Tuned Rational Mind working in conjunction with the experiences of the Conscious Mind.

Knowledge derived of Reason alone, exclusive of Experience, is totally irrational; Absolutely Bad Knowledge being no more than a half-truth, a Lie.

As above so below!

Hermes Trismegistus, Lord of the Ring, Keeper of the Holy Grail.

So be it, make it so, Ye, Amen RA!-->0

[LuckyR]

Animal Instinct not being priori Knowledge, animal instinct simply being the easiest reaction to a situation, the Herd Instinct, not to say that Man is the only creature to learn from experience; Animal Instinct simply being a reaction rather than a response; reaction for some animals, being repetitive seemingly to be instinctual, being nothing more than a conditioned response.

Setting aside your understanding of a priori knowledge, your understanding of the detailed intricacies of an ant colony or a beehive for easy examples, don't fit your brush off of unlearned behavior in animals. BTW humans are animals, but since we get to define terms, for egotistical reasons we don't commonly use the word "instinct" to describe unlearned behaviors within our own experience.

[Wayne92587]

Undoubtedly you are correct; my judgment of animal instinct being totally incorrect, being Absolutely Bad.

-- Updated August 30th, 2015, 12:54 pm to add the following --

The Universe, the Existence of the whole of Reality began with a Big Bang, with the creation of the Reality of First Cause, the Uncaused Cause, with the Creation of the First Singularity to have relative, numerical value of One.

By definition the motion of a Singularity exists without angular momentum, without displacement, without velocity of speed and direction, exists without meaning, is meaningless.

As for Cause and Effect, Effect not coming into existence until the Creation, of the Reality of First Cause, of a Singularity having relative, a Numerical value of One-1; a Singularity of One-1, the Uncaused Cause coming into existence as the result of the Metamorphisms of a Singularity of Zero-0; a Singularity of Zero-1 coming into existence as the result of an alchemical reaction

Prior to the beginning of the Creation of the Universe, Singularity existed as an unconditional State of Singularity, as an omnipresent Microscopic State of Individuality, as an Infinitely finite State of Indivisible Singularities, as an immeasurable quantity of Singularities having no relative, numerical value with none being subject to the relativity of Time and Space, Space-Time; the Whole of Reality, as a State of Existence before the Beginning, as an Infinite, immeasurable quantity of Fully Random Individualities, State of Singularity, Singularity known to be the Transcendental, (Metaphysical) fully-Random quantum State of Singularity; Time, Space and Motion having angular momentum, velocity of speed and direct, displacement, coming into existence along with the Beginning of the Universe at the Zero Hour, at the Event Horizon.

Singularity as the Transcendent Cause of Reality existing as both a Microcosm, as a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0 and as an Omnipotent Macrocosm, as a countable, measurable, quantity of Singularities having relative, numerical value of One-1 existing as an Omnipotent quantity of Singularities having Mass, Material worth.

The First Singularity of One-1, En, as an Affect being the Single direct material cause of the System of Chaos (as in the Butterfly Effect) that made manifest, that began the existence of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Realty of Everything.

The Single Transcendental Cause of the Universe, to include Time, Space and Motion having displacement, angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction being a Singularity having a Dual Quality, being a Singularity that does and does not Exist, which came first Cause or Effect? Why not an Affect?. The Transcendental Cause existing as a Singularity having a dual quality, being, existing as 0/1.