A priori and a posteriori
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 10:37, 12 May 2013 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 10:38, 12 May 2013 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| An early philosophical use of what might be considered a notion of ''a priori'' knowledge (though not called by that name) is [[Plato]]'s [[Innatism|theory of recollection]], related in the dialogue ''[[Meno]]'' (380 B.C.), according to which something like ''a priori'' knowledge is knowledge inherent, [[Intrinsic and extrinsic properties (philosophy)|intrinsic]] in the human mind. | An early philosophical use of what might be considered a notion of ''a priori'' knowledge (though not called by that name) is [[Plato]]'s [[Innatism|theory of recollection]], related in the dialogue ''[[Meno]]'' (380 B.C.), according to which something like ''a priori'' knowledge is knowledge inherent, [[Intrinsic and extrinsic properties (philosophy)|intrinsic]] in the human mind. | ||
| - | 13th century philosopher [[Thomas Aquinas]], in the [[Summa Theologica]], writes: "Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm |title=SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The existence of God (Prima Pars, Q. 2) |publisher=Newadvent.org |date= |accessdate=2012-12-19}}</ref> | + | 13th century philosopher [[Thomas Aquinas]], in the [[Summa Theologica]], writes: "Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist." |
| - | [[Albert of Saxony]], a 14th century logician wrote on the both ''a priori'' and ''a posteriori''.<ref name=EB>{{cite encyclopedia|last= |first= |authorlink= |editor-first= |editor-last= |editor-link= |encyclopedia=Encyclopedia Britannica|title=a priori knowledge|edition=15th|year=2010|publisher=Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.|volume=I: A-Ak - Bayes|location= Chicago, IL|isbn=978-1-59339-837-8|pages=1}}</ref> [[George Berkeley]], the Irish divine and philosopher outlined the distinction in ''[[A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge]]'' of 1710, though the terms were already well known by that time. | + | [[Albert of Saxony]], a 14th century logician wrote on the both ''a priori'' and ''a posteriori''. [[George Berkeley]], the Irish divine and philosopher outlined the distinction in ''[[A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge]]'' of 1710, though the terms were already well known by that time. |
| ===Immanuel Kant=== | ===Immanuel Kant=== | ||
| - | The eighteenth-century German philosopher [[Immanuel Kant]] (1781) advocated a blend of [[Rationalism|rationalist]] and [[Empiricism|empiricist]] theories. Kant states, "although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience"<ref name="kant_1781">Kant (1781), introduction, §I.</ref> According to Kant, ''a priori'' knowledge is [[Transcendence (philosophy)|transcendental]], or based on the ''form'' of all possible experience, while ''a posteriori'' knowledge is empirical, based on the ''content'' of experience. Kant states, "... it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the ''occasion'')."<ref name="kant_1781"/> Thus, unlike the empiricists, Kant thinks that ''a priori'' knowledge is independent of the content of experience; moreover, unlike the rationalists, Kant thinks that ''a priori'' knowledge, in its pure form, that is without the admixture of any empirical content, is knowledge limited to the deduction of the [[condition of possibility|conditions of possible experience]]. These ''a priori'', or transcendental conditions, are seated in one's cognitive faculties, and are not provided by experience in general or any experience in particular. Kant nominated and explored the possibility of a transcendental logic with which to consider the deduction of the ''a priori'' in its pure form. Concepts such as [[time]] and [[cause]] are counted among the list of pure ''a priori'' forms. Kant reasoned that the pure ''a priori'' forms are established via his [[transcendental aesthetic]] and transcendental logic. He claimed that the human subject would not have the kind of experience that it has were these ''a priori'' forms not in some way constitutive of him as a human subject. For instance, he would not experience the world as an orderly, rule-governed place unless time and cause were operative in his cognitive faculties. The claim is more formally known as Kant's transcendental deduction and it is the central argument of his major work, the ''[[Critique of Pure Reason]]''. The transcendental deduction does not avoid the fact or [[objectivity (philosophy)|objectivity]] of time and cause, but does, in its consideration of a possible logic of the ''a priori'', attempt to make the case for the fact of [[subjectivity]], what constitutes subjectivity and what relation it holds with objectivity and the empirical. | + | The eighteenth-century German philosopher [[Immanuel Kant]] (1781) advocated a blend of [[Rationalism|rationalist]] and [[Empiricism|empiricist]] theories. Kant states, "although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience" According to Kant, ''a priori'' knowledge is [[Transcendence (philosophy)|transcendental]], or based on the ''form'' of all possible experience, while ''a posteriori'' knowledge is empirical, based on the ''content'' of experience. Kant states, "... it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the ''occasion'')." Thus, unlike the empiricists, Kant thinks that ''a priori'' knowledge is independent of the content of experience; moreover, unlike the rationalists, Kant thinks that ''a priori'' knowledge, in its pure form, that is without the admixture of any empirical content, is knowledge limited to the deduction of the [[condition of possibility|conditions of possible experience]]. These ''a priori'', or transcendental conditions, are seated in one's cognitive faculties, and are not provided by experience in general or any experience in particular. Kant nominated and explored the possibility of a transcendental logic with which to consider the deduction of the ''a priori'' in its pure form. Concepts such as [[time]] and [[cause]] are counted among the list of pure ''a priori'' forms. Kant reasoned that the pure ''a priori'' forms are established via his [[transcendental aesthetic]] and transcendental logic. He claimed that the human subject would not have the kind of experience that it has were these ''a priori'' forms not in some way constitutive of him as a human subject. For instance, he would not experience the world as an orderly, rule-governed place unless time and cause were operative in his cognitive faculties. The claim is more formally known as Kant's transcendental deduction and it is the central argument of his major work, the ''[[Critique of Pure Reason]]''. The transcendental deduction does not avoid the fact or [[objectivity (philosophy)|objectivity]] of time and cause, but does, in its consideration of a possible logic of the ''a priori'', attempt to make the case for the fact of [[subjectivity]], what constitutes subjectivity and what relation it holds with objectivity and the empirical. |
| ===Johann Fichte=== | ===Johann Fichte=== | ||
Revision as of 10:38, 12 May 2013
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" are used in philosophy to distinguish between deductive and inductive reasoning, respectively. Attempts to define clearly or explain a priori and a posteriori knowledge are part of a central thread in epistemology, the study of knowledge. Since the definitions and usage of the terms have been corrupted over time and therefore vary between fields, it is difficult to provide universal definitions of them. One rough and oversimplified explanation is as follows: a priori knowledge is independent of experience, while a posteriori knowledge is dependent on experience. In other words, statements that are a priori true are tautologies.
Economists sometimes use "a priori" to describe a step in an argument the truth of which can be taken as self-evident. "A posteriori", on the other hand, implies that an argument must be based upon empirical evidence.
Contents |
History
Early uses
The phrases "a priori" and "a posteriori" are Latin for "from what comes before" and "from what comes later" (or, less literally, "[from first principles, but] before experience" and "after experience"). They appear in Latin translations of Euclid's Elements, a work widely considered during the early European modern period as the model for precise thinking.
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.), according to which something like a priori knowledge is knowledge inherent, intrinsic in the human mind.
13th century philosopher Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, writes: "Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist."
Albert of Saxony, a 14th century logician wrote on the both a priori and a posteriori. George Berkeley, the Irish divine and philosopher outlined the distinction in A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge of 1710, though the terms were already well known by that time.
Immanuel Kant
The eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1781) advocated a blend of rationalist and empiricist theories. Kant states, "although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience" According to Kant, a priori knowledge is transcendental, or based on the form of all possible experience, while a posteriori knowledge is empirical, based on the content of experience. Kant states, "... it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion)." Thus, unlike the empiricists, Kant thinks that a priori knowledge is independent of the content of experience; moreover, unlike the rationalists, Kant thinks that a priori knowledge, in its pure form, that is without the admixture of any empirical content, is knowledge limited to the deduction of the conditions of possible experience. These a priori, or transcendental conditions, are seated in one's cognitive faculties, and are not provided by experience in general or any experience in particular. Kant nominated and explored the possibility of a transcendental logic with which to consider the deduction of the a priori in its pure form. Concepts such as time and cause are counted among the list of pure a priori forms. Kant reasoned that the pure a priori forms are established via his transcendental aesthetic and transcendental logic. He claimed that the human subject would not have the kind of experience that it has were these a priori forms not in some way constitutive of him as a human subject. For instance, he would not experience the world as an orderly, rule-governed place unless time and cause were operative in his cognitive faculties. The claim is more formally known as Kant's transcendental deduction and it is the central argument of his major work, the Critique of Pure Reason. The transcendental deduction does not avoid the fact or objectivity of time and cause, but does, in its consideration of a possible logic of the a priori, attempt to make the case for the fact of subjectivity, what constitutes subjectivity and what relation it holds with objectivity and the empirical.
Johann Fichte
After Kant's death, a number of philosophers saw themselves as correcting and expanding his philosophy, leading to the various forms of German Idealism. One of these philosophers was Johann Fichte. His student (and critic), Arthur Schopenhauer, accused him of rejecting the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge:
See also
