apriori knowledge

[Veritas]

What is this in the Kantian sense?

Basically, I am trying to read "The Critique of Pure Reason" and am not grasping what apriori knowledge is. Are there any examples?

Is it true? Why or why not?

Edited December 4, 2007 by Veritas

[DavidOdden]

Basically, I am trying to read "The Critique of Pure Reason" and am not grasping what apriori knowledge is.

Don't ask questions about Kant, because that just confuses the issue. You won't understand the topic any better, and no matter how many times you read it, you Kant make any sense of it. A priori knowledge is knowledge that you have prior to any experience. The problem for the idea is, there is no such knowledge. Peikoff's classic essay "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" does an excellent job of dissecting and disposing of the dichotomy.

[Mimpy]

Apriori knowledge does not require any sensory experience but pure logic. An example of an apriori truth is "Right now it is either raining or not raining." The problem with these kinds of statements is, of course, that they do not provide any new information but state the obvious.

[softwareNerd]

That's an example of something that is typically considered "a priori"; but, in reality, no knowledge is a priori, not even "A is A".

Edited December 4, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Veritas]

Apriori knowledge does not require any sensory experience but pure logic. An example of an apriori truth is "Right now it is either raining or not raining." The problem with these kinds of statements is, of course, that they do not provide any new information but state the obvious.

But wouldn't you only be able to tell the answer to the proposition by looking outside?

[aequalsa]

That's an example of something that is typically considered "a priori"; but, in reality, no knowledge is a priori, not even "A is A".

HEY! No need to get personal.

[DavidOdden]

Apriori knowledge does not require any sensory experience but pure logic.

But you require (massive amounts of) sensory knowledge to form any concepts at all. Pure logic existing in a mind with no sensory information will literally lead you to no conclusions at all.

[softwareNerd]

HEY! No need to get personal.

[Mimpy]

But wouldn't you only be able to tell the answer to the proposition by looking outside?

The statement "It is either raining or not raining right now" is always true. You do not have to look outside to verify it's correct. Of course it is either raining or not raining right now! I am, of course, just trying to show you an example of what is considered an apriori truth. I agree with David Odden that such knowledge is not possible without looking externally first. The only way meaningful apriori truths could exist would be if some knowledge were innate.

See Descartes' famous wax example for an illustration of this.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Mimpy

[John McVey]

What is this in the Kantian sense?

Kant said there are innate structures in the mind that organise and create a subjective perceptible reality. Kant's idea was that since this innate structure created the observable and comprehensible world, there may be propositions that are true of the world yet are validated independently of observation of it because they are innate within us - the creators of that subjective world - as implications of that structure.

Basically, I am trying to read "The Critique of Pure Reason" and am not grasping what apriori knowledge is. Are there any examples?

Kant's system relies upon there being a dichotomy of the analytic versus the synthetic. His aim was to discover "synthetic a-priori" statements, as opposed to "analytic a-priori" statements.

The analytic a-priori is colloquially known as "true by definition", ie one just looks at the definitions of words and sees that the statement is true without actually looking at the world. For example, "gold is a metal" is analytic because gold is defined as a metal of a certain kind, and a-priori because you need not make any observations about gold or know a blessed thing about it beyond looking it up in the dictionary. You could go through your whole life never once coming across gold or knowing what it is and yet still know that the statement "gold is a metal" is true. Statements like these are (allegedly) empty and uninformative because they don't tell you anything that isn't already wholly implied by the words used (usually that the predicate of the statement is already covered by the definition of the subject of the statement).

The synthetic a-priori, was allegedly where you couldn't do that check-the-definitions procedure but had to bring two different bits of knowledge together (which meant the synthetic part) yet you still didn't have to go look at the physical world to do obtain those bits (which meant the a-priori part). Instead, you go to the innate structure of the mind and tease out the implications of that structure by work to identify connections within that structure, and in turn actually learning something because the process converts the structure into knowledge of the structure (cf Moliere learning he'd actually been talking in this mysterious "prose" stuff all the time and didn't know it). We Objectivists know there no such things as innate ideas, but Kant said there were a rare few and claimed to have found them. Specifically, he wanted to validate statements of something or other being good, as identified independently of observation of and reasoning about the world, but not in a way that makes these statements as empty and uninformative as analytic statements are. His innate knowledge was of there being certain values, and as a consequence there being principles of action in relation to those values, that are innate within us because of the structure of our mental apparatus. The result is his alleged categorical imperative and in turn a whole moral code that is independent of observation of the world and concern for our happiness within that world - ie promotion of abject selflessness based on denying the primacy of existence in deference to primacy of consciousness.

Is it true? Why or why not?

No. The analytic-synthetic dichotomy is totally bogus. First, read the second edition of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I specify the second edition because the next thing you should then do is follow David's advice and read Dr Peikoff's article, which you will find nicely included in that edition.

JJM

Edit: cleaned up what could have been a misunderstanding about analytic statements

Edited December 4, 2007 by John McVey

[Robert J. Kolker]

Don't ask questions about Kant, because that just confuses the issue. You won't understand the topic any better, and no matter how many times you read it, you Kant make any sense of it. A priori knowledge is knowledge that you have prior to any experience. The problem for the idea is, there is no such knowledge. Peikoff's classic essay "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" does an excellent job of dissecting and disposing of the dichotomy.

Without having made the personal acquaintance of every planar triangle you can still show that the sum of the angles is 180 degrees for any planar triangle. Since you have only seen a finite number of them in your lifetime your reckoning of the angle sum is known a priori for a triangle you have not seen and measured before.

Bob Kolker

[DavidOdden]

Without having made the personal acquaintance of every planar triangle you can still show that the sum of the angles is 180 degrees for any planar triangle. Since you have only seen a finite number of them in your lifetime your reckoning of the angle sum is known a priori for a triangle you have not seen and measured before.

I think the problem is that you don't understand what "a priori" means. Admittedly, the etymological connection between "prior" and "a priori" is seductive.

[Robert J. Kolker]

I think the problem is that you don't understand what "a priori" means. Admittedly, the etymological connection between "prior" and "a priori" is seductive.

See pp 133-136 of -The Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods- by Baggini and Fosl, Blackwell Publishing, 2001.

Generally speaking, things known a priori are known deductively. Things known a posteriori are known empirically.

I know the angles of a planar triangle add to 180 degrees by deductive means. I know that I weigh 182 (+_ scale error) lb. because I just looked at the scale.

I do not confuse a priori with analytic. Kant did. I don't.

Bob Kolker

[DavidOdden]

See also the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, noting "A proposition is knowable a priori if it is knowable independently of experience" (no proposition is knowable independently of experience, all knowledge is dependent on experience); Philosophical Dictionary esp. "the a priori is taken to be independent of sensory experience" (thus there is no a priori knowledge), and the Stanford Encyclopedia which repeats the "independent of experience line" (though quite convoluted since for them it reduces to justification).

[Cogito]

As an example of why there are no a-priori truths, consider the following statement: Either this xanpha is thit, or this xanpha isn't thit. From an a-priori standpoint, the previous statement is true (assuming you start with A is A). The problem is that xanpha and thit aren't actual concepts, derived from reality, so the statement has no meaning and thus isn't a statement at all, so it can't be true. If you substitute real concepts (a noun and an adjective, respectively), then the statement becomes true, but only after you form the concept from observation, thus not a-priori.

[Robert J. Kolker]

As an example of why there are no a-priori truths, consider the following statement: Either this xanpha is thit, or this xanpha isn't thit. From an a-priori standpoint, the previous statement is true (assuming you start with A is A). The problem is that xanpha and thit aren't actual concepts, derived from reality, so the statement has no meaning and thus isn't a statement at all, so it can't be true. If you substitute real concepts (a noun and an adjective, respectively), then the statement becomes true, but only after you form the concept from observation, thus not a-priori.

The sum of angles in a plane triangle (any plane triangel) is 180 degrees (a straight angle). That is a concept and is derived a priori from the postulates of Euclid. One need not measure the angle sum. One can deduce it. A Priori is Latin for "from what is before or prior". In this case a proposition is deduced from logically prior propositions.

All mathematical theorems are examples of a priori propositions.

Bob Kolker

[DavidOdden]

The sum of angles in a plane triangle (any plane triangel) is 180 degrees (a straight angle).

The concept "sum" is generalized from combining herds of smalled sizes, or pooling bags of marbles, and logicalle depends on integer concepts. Those are formed inductively from experience with distinguishing "one cow" from "two cows" and "three cows". Similarly, the concepts "plane", "angle", "degree" and "triangle" are all formed by experience with particular real objects. No knowledge can be experience-free.

[Animae]

I don’t really understand the Objectivist position on this, is it considered invalid to justify knowledge from reasoning, or is simply the distinction between a priori/a posteriori considered invalid?

And in consideration to knowledge being experience free, who has claimed such a thing? To quote Kant on this:

“That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt”

[softwareNerd]

I don’t really understand the Objectivist position on this, is it considered invalid to justify knowledge from reasoning, ...

Basically, reasoning is a type of knowledge, and is also gained by the human processing of experience/observation. Edited April 6, 2008 by softwareNerd

[Grames]

It is important to note that the very method of logic and its foundational principle the law of identity is derived from sensory experience. (Validated ostensively, in the Objectivist jargon.) Technically then, nothing is known 'a priori,' not even deductions from axioms. Even the imaginary elements of euclidean geometry, points, lines, and planes are inspired by and derived from the sensory experience of the real world.

'A priori knowledge' is an anti-concept, it negates and destroys the possibility of knowledge by detaching ideas from reality.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Grames

[DavidOdden]

I don’t really understand the Objectivist position on this, is it considered invalid to justify knowledge from reasoning, or is simply the distinction between a priori/a posteriori considered invalid?

. Yes; check Peikoff's article on the analytic / synthetic dichotomy in ITOE for a longer exposition.

And in consideration to knowledge being experience free, who has claimed such a thing?

That would be a typification of the Continental Rationalist view, e.g. Descartes, Leibniz.

[trivas7]

. Yes; check Peikoff's article on the analytic / synthetic dichotomy in ITOE for a longer exposition.That would be a typification of the Continental Rationalist view, e.g. Descartes, Leibniz.

You're not saying that inferential knowledge is not justified, correct?

[Scott_Connery]

While I can't speak for David, I would say that there is nothing wrong with inferential knowledge. With the caveat being, that it has to be inferred from something and not from nothing, as Kant attemtpt to do.

[DavidOdden]

You're not saying that inferential knowledge is not justified, correct?

Invoking "justification" is confusing or pointless, since we're not looking for excuses, we're looking for truth. Why don't we talk about "valid", which is the proper standard for knowledge. All knowledge is either direct (perceptual) or inferential. Animals are limited to direct knowledge; characteristically human knowledge is inferential. So clearly inferential knowledge, especially via inductive inferences, can be valid. Why do you ask? What is it about Peikoff's essay that might suggest otherwise to you?

[Animae]

It is important to note that the very method of logic and its foundational principle the law of identity is derived from sensory experience. (Validated ostensively, in the Objectivist jargon.) Technically then, nothing is known 'a priori,' not even deductions from axioms. Even the imaginary elements of euclidean geometry, points, lines, and planes are inspired by and derived from the sensory experience of the real world.

But what about the proposition “the sums of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees”? There is no such thing as a degree in reality; you could just as well define triangles to have a sum of angles of 2000 degrees or 2 degrees if you want, as long as the definition of a degree is used consistently it would work with any value (some are however more convenient).

Yet when I say that the sums of the triangles angles are 180 degrees, surely that statement must be considered knowledge.

So I don’t see how that can be justified from experience.

The same essentially applies to the form of the triangle itself. If someone were to point out a triangle in reality and say, “this is what I mean, thus it is justified by experience” I would simply ask: how do you know that figure is a triangle?

Invoking "justification" is confusing or pointless, since we're not looking for excuses, we're looking for truth. Why don't we talk about "valid", which is the proper standard for knowledge. All knowledge is either direct (perceptual) or inferential. Animals are limited to direct knowledge; characteristically human knowledge is inferential. So clearly inferential knowledge, especially via inductive inferences, can be valid. Why do you ask? What is it about Peikoff's essay that might suggest otherwise to you?

Well justifying is kind of important, because otherwise how do you know something? I’m sitting in front of my computer right now. How do justify that statement, that is: how do I know it is true? Well as I experience it right now, I can say that that statement is true by experience.

But consider now if I somehow at a later date I happen to forget that I wrote this post, and looking in this tread I see my post again. From that I could conclude that I, at some previous time was sitting in front of my computer and wrote this post. But that proposition would not be true by experience, so I would have to justify it by reason.

And in case a priori is limited only to pure a priori justification (a priori without any experience, like an innate idea or some other odd thing I guess) then the concept becomes useless, why define it in such a fashion?