Comments
8 CommentsAs promised, it's time for an intellectual discussion!
This is the first in what I hope to be a recurring series of notes in which I hope to involve 9rules members in discussion about the things I'm learning in conjunction with my goal to learn something every day. I won't make a note every day - I suspect that would be considered intellectual overkill - but I will bring the most interesting topics here.
For the first day of my mission, I jumped in right at the deepest part of the deep end and had a read about a priori and a posteriori knowledge. I kind of wish I hadn't started this with something that's so far over my head because I doubt I've done a particularly good job of writing about it, but regardless, I found it incredibly interesting and, for better or for worse, have published my thoughts.
So now it's your turn to weigh in. As much I want to intiate a good discussion here, I'm going to be selfish and say comments on the blog entry would be much appreciated too. So if you have anything to say here, feel free to repeat yourself on the blog too.
To save myself repeating myself, here's a quote to get you acquainted with a priori and a posteriori knowledge:
a priori and a posteriori are latin terms (hence the italicization) that literally mean “from what comes before” and “from what comes later”, respectively. When related to philosophy, the terms are used to demarcate two seperate epistemological notions - two different types of knowledge.
Have a read of the entry and tell me what you think. I'd be particularly interested to hear from any Philosophy buffs that know more about it than I [now] do.
Personally, I find the concept fascinating, if a little hard to grasp. In particular, the definition of a priori and a posteriori - how do you differentiate between the two?
To quote the example I used:
A popular example is that knowing bachelors are unmarried men is a priori knowledge, but knowing that a specific bachelor is tall is considered a posteriori knowledge.
The former is considered a priori because the statement can be qualified with reasoning. I don't need personal experience to claim that bachelors are unmarried men because I know what a bachelor is. But surely I had to learn what a bachelor was before being able to define it like that? Then again, maybe I've misunderstood the concept.
Anyone?
Kamigoroshi
Written Mar. 19, 2007 / Report /
Well since I follow Kantian's school of thought, priori is the collective knowledge that came before us. Since all knowledge recorded is basically posteriori knowledge or knowledge of that moment in time, passing in on and for us to read without experience translates it to our own priori knowledge.
Whatever we experience in life, whether love or say job skills is posteriori knowledge. However if we were to say pass it on to someone else, as a form of education, that would be their priori knowledge. Does that make sense? That's how I understand it.
ErinR
Written Mar. 19, 2007 / Report /
Yes and no. If you equate, for example, the understanding of the word "bachelor" with complex theories of calculus, then yes, I suppose both would be a priori knowledge, since someone before has acquired the knowledge a posteriori and is transmitting it to us a priori.
I don't know enough about philosophy to really have an opinion on this, (though of course that doesn't stop me from having one ;-) ), but it seems to me that most knowledge is actually a posteriori. We learn most things, so therefore there exists a time before we know and a time after we've learned. If a priori means "from what comes before" and a posteriori means "from what comes after," then in my [possibly over-simplified] opinion, anything we learn, even a simple definition, would be a posteriori knowledge.
If I follow my own train of thought, then the only a priori knowledge that we have would be that which we are never taught: how things taste, look, feel, etc., although the words we use to describe them would, of course, be a posteriori knowledge. :-P
Kamigoroshi
Written Mar. 19, 2007 / Report /
I think you hit the dot Erin. By that right, all natural instinct we have, to love, to kill, to eat, to walk. Everything we did "naturally" as children or when we fight or flight is a priori.
How to love, how to kill, how to eat and so on are all posteriori knowledge.
Things like instinct and personal traits. Things we are born without prior experience are all priori knowledge.
Rich
Written Mar. 19, 2007 / Report /
Bump! In case anyone missed it.
bloglily
Written Mar. 19, 2007 / Report /
I'm headed over to your blog a little later, Rich, but first wanted to thank you for doing this.
I do understand -- but just definitionally -- the difference between a priori and a posteriori. But here's my question: why does it matter? What I mean by that is what do you use that distinction for?
Your blog will probably answer this, so I'm off to have a look.
Rich
Written Mar. 19, 2007 / Report /
I'm afraid my blog doesn't answer that! I didn't go too deeply into it because I realised quite fast that I was in way over my head.
To address your question: there are languages that are defined as a priori and a posteriori. Where a priori language is not made up of any existing language, and a posteriori language is based upon already existing languages. Klingon is a notable example of an a priori language. (Incidentally, it was hearing this distinction that moved me to study the meaning of the words yesterday.) As noted on Wikipedia, there are also uses within mathematical modelling.
Probably the most relevant use, straight from the Wikipedia article:
Though that doesn't really answer the question of why the distinction is necessary, they're good examples of where the distinction can be used.
Scrivs
Written Mar. 19, 2007 / Report /
I had to write a paper on this very stuff back in high school and honestly I can't say I'm more knowledgeable about it now than I was back then. To me it seems that if you base a priori on the basis that it was knowledge garnered from past knowledge than the only a posteriori knowledge we could attain would be from brand new experiences. See someone touch a hot stove and scream lets you know it is painful (a priori), but I'm guessing until you touch it the knowledge of how much it burns (a posteriori) is yet to be attained.
In this case a posteriori can only be learned through your own experiences, while a priori is learned from others past experience.
Kamigoroshi
Written Mar. 19, 2007 / Report /
In a way it does matter, discussions like this were meant to show in part our reason of existence and during those times God was pretty much part of the ongoing debate of reasoning.
Yup Scrivs, the only way I see now how Priori would fit is in instinctual actions. Things we react to on the moment. We don't know but we do it anyway.