"a priori" and "a posteriori" - philosophical terms

[CiaoBellamina]

Obviously this guy would have a cat...

[longmann101]

I couldn't concentrate on anything else but the cat.

[goodrhoden]

Inconsistent with your pronunciation of "a priori" and "a posteriori", you twit....and they're not complicated either...just a stick-up-you-ass way of saying deductive and inductive

[Jheap78]

did anyone notice the cat that fell off the shelf?

[drlingnikki123]

This is so understandable. Thank you.

[shilohwillcome]

Why can't professors make comments??

[Howieeeeex]

Fail at 0:46

[BenFranklin64]

Mr. Cropper I find your video to be quite interesting and fascinating. I think that you have taught these novices the objectivisit epistemology lesson that they need to find out how philosophy works.

I also happen to think that any modern philosopher needs at least two cats or kittens, for those who take care of pets are quite good and decent people who understand the responsibility for other living things like animals and human beings.

[thrashmetalmike]

thank you Mr. Cropper

[sixtycent0889]

Is this view in accordance with that of Immanuel Kant? Im am writing a paper on Kant's "Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals" and could use some help.

[blackrabbits1]

lol @ the cats in the bookshelf!

[victor1eremita]

pretty vulgar explanation of the a priori. A priori judgements, at least in the Kantian and Positivistic sense, dont really have such a crucial dependence on experience as people often claim. Why? its simple -- the a priori is a formal truth, wherein experience is not REQUIRED to validate the truth claim. Ie) a bicycle has two wheels, all bodies are extended, or a bachelor is an unmarried man. one might say they are tautological, or that they carry with them NECESSITY, true by definition.

[palkom13]

but the definition of such terminology was not innate or prior experience. Truth by definition created deductive knowledge but not without a required experience of a given stimuli. Not all swans are white remember and not all bicycles have two wheels.

[Guedingen]

Good man, many thanks

[bjarczyk]

it's not before or after "reality", it's before or after EXPERIENCE.

[starsight55]

crucial distinction - EXPERIENCE. Bravo

bjarczyk! Philosophy, to me - and to anybody who is a True philosopher in my opinion also - is all about those CRUCIAL distinctions. As Goethe put it 'the devil lies in the detail'.

[starsight55]

He does make that distiinction. Just have to keep in mind that there is a distinction between 'reality' and 'experience'. Noumental and phenomenual. (spelling is probably wrong. Mind you the point is always more important than the formalities, ultimately)

[jonnyqh]

@bjarczyk He never said before or after "reality", he said: before or after CONTACT with reality, meaning, EXPERIENCE

[TugaPipeJunior]

I think it's funny when he says you are welcome to watch just don't make any comments, lol.

Good explanations though.

[fc007]

"Tabula rasa" I think came from Locke the term.

I may have misspelled tabula rasa, or Locke

[pizzafezz]

I love you Dr. Cropper

[gloriousgee]

This comment is guaranteed to have no meaning.

Any argument to the contrary is guaranteed to have no meaning.

Nuff said. Nice to see an attempt to define the terms on You Tube, but can we have someone who knows what he/she is talking about?

[pythagoras9]

Hello Mrcropper, I want to go back to my point about the fact that the instincts in organisms enables them to instinctually know things, a good example of this can be found in homing pigeons. Homing pigeons have no rational knowledge of where to fly to get home from any location, but yet instinctually they know how to get home. DO you see my point Mrcropper!

[MrCropper]

" Homing pigeons have no rational knowledge of where to fly to get home from any location, but yet instinctually they know how to get home"

Yes, animals have innate knowledge. When it fails them, they die. They have no rational faculty. That's why deer run into your headlights instead of away - they can only see the ground lit by your lights, so they go where they can see.

[pythagoras9]

Many species of animals have survived for millions of years mostly using their instincts; so it has some advantages don't you think?

[pythagoras9]

Animals don't actually have innate knowledge itself in the sense of actual ideas of causes or reasons for things. Animals have a type of instinctual knowing of what to do in certain circumstances and this is because it is a part of their DNA inheritance.

[BenFranklin64]

@MrCropper I believe there was an experiment in which crows were taught to put coins in a vending machine that gave peanuts to them. I think it is very much like what you are trying to say about no rational knowledge yet instinct tells them what money and vending and an economy means. Our fellow human beings lack such a thing, as I think we started to de-evolve when we became too dependent on technology to do the work and thinking for us.

[Kikarok]

@MrCropper

Quite a bit late, but I really think innate *behavior* would make for a more apt description of instinct.

[comaritan]

is he on crack?

[DotPaulish]

No, his cats were fooling around in the background. I thought it was pretty funny to see them goof off while he was being serious. Not that I would really expect cats to suddenly become sage philosophers or anything.

[ZombieJesusBrainz]

Read Naming and Necessity by Kripke. All this will change by some plain speaking examples.

[ZombieJesusBrainz]

A Priori does not equal before experience.

You can have Synthetic A Priori.

[pythagoras9]

ZombieJesusBrainz; whatever! If you cannot actually come up with a proper argument instead of just refuting me, then don't waste my time!

[pythagoras9]

ZombieJesusBrainz, the following is from wikepedia:

"The phrases "a priori" and "a posteriori" are Latin for "from what comes before" and "from what comes later" (or, less literally, "before experience" and "after experience"). An early philosophical use of what might be considered a notion of a priori knowledge (though not called by that name) is Plato's theory of recollection, related in the dialogue Meno (380 B.C.E.)."

[pythagoras9]

ZombieJesusBrainz, a priori can also mean knowledge independent of experience. Next time do your homework instead of attempting to refute peoples claims without knowing what you are doing; you should also use a proper argument next time!

[UnivAnom]

Just to throw a wrench into the gears.. I'm inclined towards a neo-Kantian-ish view that there is no such thing as pure a posteriori and perhaps no pure a priori as well.

Arguably, the distinction between a priori and a posteriori is misleading and makes things out to be cleaner than they actually are.

Then again, maybe this comment is devoid of all meaning :p

[ZombieJesusBrainz]

heres to that. fuck rand.

[underpantsjihad]

A priori does not mean "before" experience you dipshit. It means casually prior to experience. As in good, better or best. Ideas which can't possibly be experienced. Like necessity or contingency, space and time etc

[pythagoras9]

A priori knowledge means knowledge that we have which for us exists prior to any experience we have, or could have of this knowledge.

You are very cynical and nasty but you are not very intelligent!

The fact that you typed "casually" instead of prior in causality is evidence of how dumb you are!

[pythagoras9]

underpantsjihad, a priori is latin and it means "from what comes before".

Get a brain before you insult people!

[prillvex]

I've watched a few more of your videos. You just don't have a clue, do you, you goofy bastard? Your self-taught, Rand-demented philosophizing is soooo nutty. I've never seen anything so pathetic. You're lost in lala land. Seriously, dude. You should step back and realize what an embarrassment you are. Sign up for some real courses on philosophy and be open to LEARNING it instead of thinking you already understand it because your head is twisted with Rand's misinformed interpretations.

[prillvex]

MrCropper,

I've been watching a few of your videos, and I have to ask this. You've never really studied anything other than Objectivism, have you? I mean formally. You don't have a degree in philosophy, do you?

[pugnaciousboxer2]

Thanks, you've saved me the time...

[CircleBastiat]

@prillvex Ad hominem attacks without an ounce of substance. Not only do you lack any substance but you sound incredibly bitter and angry. Also, you don't sound like much of a philosopher yourself considering you have no concept of how to respond intelligently to people.

[Thehappyhippies]

I am not an authority on this subject by any means, however, my understanding of a priori is a little different then what you said here. I thought that a priori meant the knowledge, or facts that are true regardless of our existence, the stuff that is built into the "fabric of the universe", the knowledge that God (if there is such a being) would have. Feel free to educate me. (Learning is fun!)

[pythagoras9]

Truths that are a priori can be considered to be universal truths which exist as part of reality. Human beings call a priori truths a priori because they are not necessarily part of the experiences of our senses.

[Inaissance]

Reading these comments - ignore the erroneous analogy of the foolish 'academic' - You see, for the Objectivist, Individualist, Egoist its like this;

The Senses are analogous to the computer before you,

The mInd is analogous to the Internet Complex

So all you young mInds out there look at the workings of the mInd in that sense and you'll begin to see the gRandeur of an Objective education.

* MrCropperLyceum:

the world needed you more than they ever knew or appreciated *

I $ I

[iaeruo]

inaissance...

objectivism is a myth of the knowledge structure. its just any another 'ism' - when one says they are an "objectivist" one is stuck inside the dichtonomy of objective/subjective, - objectivist vs. phenomenologist, therefore any thought or knowledge which comes from the 'ism' produces yet another fragmentation

[oathniel]

If objectivism is a myth so too is science and all the achievements it produced for the last 2000 or 500 Years (whichever you agree that science truly began Ancient Greece or Rennaissance)

P.S. I would prefer something like Object'ology' over object'ism' but I didn't coin the term so don't have much of a say over it other than it seems more appropriate to call it as such.

[oathniel]

A priori = Instinct, just ask Friedrich Neitzsche ;)

P.S. objective: I live by and for my own value and meaning, not someone elses

[iaeruo]

your value and meaning is put there by thought, conditioned upon you by your culture. nothing you live is original.

(nor i)

[oathniel]

A number is a value, what may be 6 (dollars) today may only be 5 tomorrow, and vice versa, etc.. et all. Though to a large extent language plays a strong influence on how a person thinks it is not by any means absolute and ones choice of words or value may only be determined by ones freedom of choice. To explain further, not choosing, or allowing oneself to be manipulated, is still very much so a choice, one which, I in fact, choose not to participate in.

[iaeruo]

i dont see how we have any freedom when it comes to language, and in that matter thinking itself. the subject who thinks can only think within the sanctioned reality of the worldview, that which the intersubjective cultural heritage of language provides.

now there is another kind of freedom, outside of language, but one cannot communicate it only directly experience it - the felt presence of immediate experience is a freedom that cannot be pinned down by ordinary/non-ordinary languages.

[iaeruo]

i guess one can "go outside" the sanctioned reality of the culture, outside the normal fence of intersubjectivity... and that is done by deconditioning onself...

[oathniel]

Just as language influences thought so too thought influences language.

one can choose the choice of words they will use and don't use. For example, racist terms are seldom used on a whole while for me personally I have a strong dislike of the word 'belief' and will seldom, if ever, use it. The arrangement of words/concepts is also individualistic.

[Aynology]

"Everything, everything, everything comes from the five senses...everything 'bout Everything! - The view that everything is 'a posteriori'.

You don't have any 'a priori' concepts...

So, its prior and post - after, you know?!

...So 'a priori' is ideas before contact with reality and 'a posteriori' is ideas from contact with reality or ideas coming after contact with reality...that's pretty unequivocal...I think we'll be Ok with that...

[pythagoras9]

You don't seem to be making much of a point here unless you want to elaborate more?

[Aynology]

"...professional...

(or did he say pretend?-kant be sure but both apply)

...philosophers and academicians...you folks are welcome to watch...just don't make any comments...or...let's see, you can make comments but I just guarantee they won't have any meaning."

(-:MrCropperVsTheRestOfTheWorl­d: InAClassicRhetoricalQualificat­ionProphecy$8-)

O!$ Bravo! MrC $!O

(A $ A)

[pythagoras9]

Docmoriarti, our planet is not a perfect ball, or sphere but is a wonky, bulgy, and flattened sphere. Your description of the development of non-euclidean geometry does not differ from my description of the a priori concept so i don't understand why you would disagree with me.

[docmoriarti]

pythagoras9, I disagree with the statement "abstractions only exist because reality and its processes exist". Abstractions can be formed before anything concrete that fits them is observed. That's what "a priori" means. That's why the example of a non-euclidean geometry is so potent. As for our planet, it's a sphere up to a "homeomorphism" (another concept which only exists a priori).

[pythagoras9]

The point that i was trying to make is that without reality and its processes whether these processes appear to be abstract or tangible you would not have a brain in the first place in which to make abstractions whether they represent reality, or merely imagination. Processes in reality come first and shape everything else that is based on it.

[docmoriarti]

A priori discovery is useful because it allows to examine abstractions. Without it, algebra would be impossible. Do I need to show that algebra is a good thing (tm)?

[docmoriarti]

Maybe that's how the terms started. That's not what they mean today. A priori are facts that are true by definition. As in 2+2=4 because that's how you define what 4 is (well, as 2+1+1, but still...). A posteriori (aka empirical) is the knowledge that comes from observation. ALL math is a priori because it is practices as an axiomatic system. All science is a posteriori.

[pythagoras9]

The meaning of the concept of a priori is how immanuel kant defined it and not what it has now mutated into, exact meanings must be retained otherwise one looses clarity, exactness, and definition.

[pythagoras9]

The whole point about the concept of a priori is that it describes abstact processes in the sense of how people attain knowledge about the truth of reality. Your argument upset me so much that i made what sounds like a spelling, and grammar error. Mathematicians should use a slighty different term instead of attempting to mutate kant's theories.

[docmoriarti]

I don't see why it upset you. Why does the word "reality" have to be in the 1st sentence there? Drop it and we agree. Abstract can only be deduced from assumptions because abstractions do not exist per se. Sometimes abstractions match empirical observations, but they don't have to. That's why abstract thinking allows for hypothesizing. This doesn't mutate Kant. It uses his terminology appropriately.

[pythagoras9]

If you are going to discuss the truth then the word reality is very appropriate because abstractions cannot exist without actual processes in reality occuring. Abstractions only exist because reality and its processes exist, a lot of processes in reality are abstract and cannot be seen.

[docmoriarti]

I disagree. Example: (and it's funny how I have to tell this to someone with your name) non-euclidean geometry was developed by throwing out the 5th postulate. The geometry was very wacky.  It didn't seem to fit "reality". But it was consistent. It's development was completely a priori.

[docmoriarti]

Funny thing is we live on a ball -- not on a plane. So non-euclidean geometry actually describes our world better. 2+2 is not true because you observe it to be. It is so because that's how you think of it... aka how you "define" it to be.

[shejeshelleg]

Well, there really is no argument as to what apriori means. Aposteriori knowledge could be considered knowledge from experience. I just figured that since actual experience, as we define it, is not possible without apriori knowledge I could consider that knowledge to be "memory", but it is true that the difference is in sensation.

[docmoriarti]

Umm? Experience is possible without a priori knowledge if you drop Rand's idea that we figure everything out. There are 2 types of learning -- through association and through shock. Association is tying what you observe to what you already know. Shock is experiencing something that does not "sit" with you so you cannot explain it in terms of what you already know. A priori knowledge is not necessary to learn from shock.

[shejeshelleg]

Experience, as we know it, is not possible without apriori knowledge. You couldn't even piece sensations together in realtime without apriori knowledge, let alone experience space or time. Kant describes this as "less than a dream", I wouldn't even describe it as that. Even if you were given sensations you could not be aware that you were even experiencing them (in the same way a rock has no ability to understand it is being thrown, for example)

[shejeshelleg]

And let's consider your last statement that proposes "learning" is possible without apriori knowledge. How could I experience a shock without having awareness that I am being shocked? How could my mind process a shock with no faculties of understanding? I wouldn't even be aware that I existed without apriori knowledge.

[pythagoras9]

You make a good point here because a priori ideas, and knowledge is intrinsic to the fact that we have information in our DNA that processes sensations, memory, moments in time etc...

[demonique666]

instinct is not knowledge. A priori 'knowledge' is nonsense. I guess I'm a strict empiricist.

[shejeshelleg]

If you understood the concept properly you wouldn't equate it with instinct. Apriori knowledge is a requirement of consciousness and understanding. In order to piece memories together with sensations in real time or with other memories, which is required to "understand" the implications of the content you are contemplating, you need some sort of means of handling those operations.

[shejeshelleg]

Apriori knowledge is how sensation and memory is processed and is where reason, mathematics and logic come from. The information from sensation does not go perfectly hand in hand with nature as "understanding" it through systems apriori deals in matching, measuring, predictability and context, which can sometimes be a mismatch.

[demonique666]

There is ability to integrate knowledge before experience, but I do not believe that it is knowledge itself. That's like confusing a filing cabinet with it's contents. I don't think that it is possible to argue that reason/logic came from a priori knowledge since we know that the people who came up with that stuff also had a posteriori knowledge. Chicken and egg?

[pythagoras9]

Things like reason, and logic are abilities, tendencies, and cognitions that already exist in our DNA make-up, but then we develop them further due to the ideas that we get from our sense impressions.

[shejeshelleg]

I think the ability to integrate knowledge before, during and after experience is what Kant means when he talks about syntheses. He also considers the minds ability to analyze information, these two are conceptually like induction and deduction in logic.

[shejeshelleg]

Mathematics, in my opinion, lay at the root of these processes. Kant was trying to create a transcendental logic, one that explains "how" the information is obtained in the first place, a logic which explains induction. Kant made a famouse quote "though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out of experience"

[pythagoras9]

How did einstein know that the speed of light is more constant than different frames of reference and never changes, whereas frames of reference do? This is an a priori idea which has nothing to do with the experiences of our senses, einstein had to intuit this conclusion by using logic, and his instincts, aswell as using mathematics.

[pythagoras9]

Sensations cannot be understood by the mind, and the understanding without intuition, and instincts, and rational tendencies so what is the point of claiming that a priori ideas are not connected to these things? A lot of you people seem to attack the importance of intuition, and instincts, try living without these things and see how far you get!.

[pythagoras9]

A priori knowledge also consists of conclusions of things that exist in the cosmos that we have not experienced directly through our senses so to mention that it is limited to sensation, and memory is a limited, and incomplete view. A priori ideas, or knowledge is based on our senses, intuition, instinct, rational tendencies, understanding, and memory etc...

[pythagoras9]

I mentioned that our ideas, and knowledge of the truth come from our sense impressions, and from the information in our DNA which includes things like intuition, instincts, rationality, will-power etc... I did not mention that instinct alone is knowledge of the truth. I agree with you that the a priori concept is redundant and can be explained in other ways though!.

[pythagoras9]

"instinct is not knowledge". No one mentioned that instinct alone is knowledge, you should pay more attention to peoples actual words and also make an attempt to follow their arguments to the conclusions it makes. The whole point about kant's ten years of hard work was to unite empiricism with rationalism so that a more complete picture can be made. If you are going to call yourself a strict empiricist and reject kant's theories then you are making a flawed regression.

[docmoriarti]

If you are such a strict empiricist, what's a "2"?

[pythagoras9]

Shejeshelleg, i must admit that i find your computer analogy to be useful, keep up the good work!.

[pythagoras9]

Human beings are rational animals and not a completely separate thing all together from animals.

[pythagoras9]

Human beings have intuition, and instincts, not just one or the other.

[Aynology]

*** Man has intuition ***

- animals have instincts -

[Aynology]

"Man is a being of Volitional Consciousness" - He evolves Volitionally - ie)*I-volves* and now enjoys a Rationally Intuitive state (with an infinite potential btw).

Now freed from the bonds of nature to build and think upward. (which is why animals/nature are still burrowing and rooted while Men live and work in skyscrapers)

To continue to attribute 'instincts' as an excuse is to volitionally devolve men and yourself back to a time of creatures pre-caveman )::( atavistic at best.

(A $ A)

[pythagoras9]

Your trying to limit the faculties of human beings in your opinion of them, and you are not describing them accurately, to say that biological organisms like human beings do not have instincts does not make sense!.

[Aynology]

"Then you'll have to learn which one of us is wrong."

(JohnGalt:DagnyTaggart/Powerho­useTour/AynRand)

(A $ A)

[docmoriarti]

It's cute that you compare humans and animals based on reasoning of a person who had not even a basic understanding of biology (she didn't quite get the germ theory of disease). Humans have instincts, too. Our brain just has a larger prefrontal cortex which allows us to moderate our instincts and to make MORE inferences than say... dogs.

[pythagoras9]

A persons physical, emotional, and mental preferences are firstly instinctual, and then secondly due to value standards, or judgements.

[pythagoras9]

To say that human beings have no instincts is like saying they have no character of their own, and non ability to figure out the truth on their own. I agree that we have an innate capacity for certain things, but we do have instincts none the less.

[AynRandOeuvre]

"Playboy: you attack the idea that sex is "impervious to reason". But isn't sex a non-rational biological instinct?

AynRand: No. To begin with, man does not possess any instincts. Physically, sex is merely a capacity. But how a man will exercise this capacity and whom he will find attractive depends on his standard of value. It depends on his premises, which he may hold consciously or subconsciously, and which determine his choices. It is in this manner that his philosophy directs his sex life."

[AynRandOeuvre]

"Playboy: Isn't the individual equipped with powerful, non-rational biological drives?

AynRand: He is not. A man is equipped with a certain kind of physical mechanism and certain needs, but without any knowledge of how to fulfill them. For instance, man needs food. He experiences hunger. But unless he learns first to identify this hunger, then to know that he needs food and how to obtain it, he will starve. The need, the hunger, will not tell him how to satisfy it...

[AynRandOeuvre]

"Man is born with certain physical and psycological needs, but he can neither discover them nor satisfy them without the use of his mind. Man has to discover what is right or wrong for him as a rational being. His so-called urges will not tell him what to do." (AlvinToffler:AynRand\ThePlayb­oyInterview59AR)

[shejeshelleg]

I don't see how any of these questions or responses make any logical sense in any capacity.

[pythagoras9]

There is a lot that is not known yet about the type of information that exists in DNA, but we do know that it is instinctual, rational, progressive etc... We know that human beings do not have innate ideas, and that they start with a blank slate, and they learn truths in class, and from books, and from experience.

[dudev]

Scientists often use "a priori" synonymously with "deductive" reasoning and "a posteriori" with "inductive" reasoning. But I like your philosophical explanation better, Mr. Cropper.

[shejeshelleg]

I had no idea that scientistis use these terms, I thought only philosophers and psychologists used them.

[dudev]

Philosophy gave birth to science. So it's not really surprising that scientists use the terms. The biologist, Ernst Mayr, devotes an entire chapter in one his books to "a priori" vs. "a posteriori" thinking, and it's relation to evolutionary biology.

[pythagoras9]

I find it difficult to accept people being compared to computers, we process sense-data because we have understanding, and reason, and this sense-data becomes knowledge. You did make some good points though, thanks!.

[shejeshelleg]

Impressions are possible without understanding. Footprints in the sand are a good example but any interaction at all is an example of impression. Our faculties of understanding are mathematical and so impressions which are in accord with that, such as patterns, are more easily accepted and joined and manifest in manipulation, hence the majority of these patterns found in nature.

[shejeshelleg]

Impressions alone do not produce knowledge but at the same time nothing known of the world could be possible without some sort of access to the world through sensation.

[shejeshelleg]

A good way to think of a priori and a posteriori knowledge is to consider as a computer. A priori knowledge would be like the processor, a posteriori knowledge would be memory (ram, hard drive, etc). The tablu rasa mind is like a computer with no processing capabilities, no ability to put 1's and o's together.

[pythagoras9]

I did mention that a priori knowledge is partly due to the information in DNA and this can be compared to the information in a processor. The blank slate scenario is alike to the lack of information in a new hard drive, but in a hardrive the information placed in it is fixed, whereas in "a posteriori" knowledge there is an increase in knowledge.

[shejeshelleg]

The point of equating these types of knowledge to a computer was to simplify a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge so that people like Mr. Cropper can understand what they are and proceed with success in obtaining further understanding. I was not saying a priori knowledge is exactly conformable with the workings of a processor in a computer and a posteriori knowledge exactly conformable to the workings of systems of memory. It is a simplification.

[pythagoras9]

Keep up the good work mrcropper, i know that you are interested in the truth!.

[pythagoras9]

Everything that you say about human beings not having innate ideas, or truths from an inner place is correct, our ideas of truths come from our sense impressions and these come together with the information in our dna, or genes and these ideas are then called "a priori" ideas by some people.

[shejeshelleg]

If that is how you would like to think of it, that's ok, and it is possible that you are right.

[pythagoras9]

The concept of "a priori" exists because we as biological organisms have instinctual, and logical tendencies already in our dna, or genes as information and this gives us an ability to know certain truths instinctually.

[MrCropper]

"and this gives us an ability to know certain truths instinctually."

Wrong. A conditioned response is not a claim to truth. It is at best a statistically probable and beneficial action that has been programed as an automatic response. But when the situation in reality does not match with our "instincts," we fail (or die). That isn't knowledge; it is instinct. Two different things.

[pythagoras9]

What makes you think that the human instincts are only a conditioned response, our instincts and tendencies may have been developed due to the laws of the truth of reality. Knowledge that is not from our sense impressions, and not from our instincts and tendencies is not knowledge of truth. A priori ideas come from our sense impressions, and the information in our dna, where else are a priori ideas going to come from mrcropper?

[pythagoras9]

Mrcropper, a lot of the knowledge that human beings have in books, or in concepts are erroneous and it leads people astray, so it is incorrect to state that all knowledge is truth. Intuition, instinct, logic, and our ideas from our sense impressions is a more accurate indication of the truth about reality than a lot of the knowledge that is storing up around the world.

[Heraclitean]

You mischaracterize the views of mainstream philosophers on this. These are usually taken as epistemic terms, not as causal terms. Some rationalists, eg, do think all knowledge ~comes from~ experience, ie, enters our minds through the senses, but that some claims nonetheless have to be justified a priori, ie, without appeal to rule of inference, etc, beyond the content of experience per se. See Lawrence BonJour's books for in-depth analysis. You may not agree, but it's a reasonable view.

[Heraclitean]

Ack. I meant "WITH appeal to rules of inference..."

[MrCropper]

"Some rationalists, eg, do think all knowledge ~comes from~ experience, ie, enters our minds through the senses, but that some claims nonetheless have to be justified a priori, ie, without appeal to rule of inference, etc, beyond the content of experience per se."

That is the type of unjustified, meaningless obfuscation I would expect from academia.

[pythagoras9]

I am not a rationalist but consider myself to be an empiricist, and a realist with some tendencies towards objectivism. And i am not an academic philosopher but am a self taught philosopher, because most human beings philosophize by nature. You seem to think that a priori ideas come from some magical world in the sky and not from experience, this seems very odd!.

[pythagoras9]

Just because immanuel kant mentions in his writings that a priori ideas is knowledge before experience does not mean that they do not come from experience. Mrcropper you should take zorios advice and take the time to read kant's works properly!. Is is better to do this than always being resistant, and defiant.

[shejeshelleg]

If all knowledge is not given plainly by the senses, where does the other part of ones knowledge come from? The mind is the only place left Mrcropper.

[docmoriarti]

This is nonsense. Inference can be made from assumptions as well as observations. It is as valid in the prior case. The only check for validity of inference is consistency within the context.  I never heard anyone other than silopsists claim that a priori justification is necessary to validate empirical.

[pythagoras9]

Why are you trying to give me a hard time? i did not mention that inferences can be made without assumptions and only by observation, i was only describing reality and its processes as it exists by using words to do so. And i do not have anything against non-euclidean geometry.

[docmoriarti]

pythagoras9: I was replying to Mr Cropper's comment there. YouTube doesn't thread comments very well. I'll be more careful to address whoever I am talking to.

[nobodady1]

@MrCropper You don't realize that the very thing you are attacking is Reason. "Beyond the content of experience per se" refers to knowledge that is derived in applying reason alone to a question without experience. In mathematical matters, for example, we understand that a quantity is infinitely divisible. We can never experience this infinite divisibility. Yet we comprehend it.

[D4Shawn]

Are there still people today who take Plato seriously (with all that world of perfect forms stuff)? The more I study philosophy (I'm fairly new at it), the more I feel like I'm just studying New Age or Eastern mysticism. I thought philosophers would be the last people to take all that silly stuff seriously... but I guess they do.

P.S. How many frikkin accounts do you have? Like four?

[shejeshelleg]

Most people who take plato seriously only do so in a representational way. The freemasons are a perfect example.

[D4Shawn]

Without having any firsthand knowledge of Freemasonry, I have to assume it's nothing more than a cult of people who believe a bunch of bullshit (no different from any other cult [save for perhaps a greater than usual emphasis on political intrigue]). Would you say that is fairly accurate?

[shejeshelleg]

I'm not a freemason so I wouldn't know.  I've read a few books that said they were platonists.