Cacator's Theory of Knowledge

[tman_ndsu08]

Nope.

The point is a priori knowledge is that you can know it without any observation.


If you want to go really basic you can use a really simple statement like "2 > 1". We know that's true because we defined it to be true.

[lsbskins1]

Nope.

The point is a priori knowledge is that you can know it without any observation.


If you want to go really basic you can use a really simple statement like "2 > 1". We know that's true because we defined it to be true.

God, I hate to be so tenatious about this, but you keep saying it is true because we "define" it to be true. You may be saying that,in your opinion, there is no such thing as a priori knowledge, only commonly held definitions of truth. But a priori "truth" is absolutely not them same concept as "commonly accepted defined truth".

[tman_ndsu08]

God, I hate to be so tenatious about this, but you keep saying it is true because we "define" it to be true. You may be saying that,in your opinion, there is no such thing as a priori knowledge, only commonly held definitions of truth. But a priori "truth" is absolutely not them same concept as "commonly accepted defined truth".

1. A Priori: Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect

[Boetie]

Cacator posts: I've surmized that such "justified beliefs" can go in two directions; if proven true, they can ascend to the Heavenly Heights of "Superknowledge" (!), on the other hand, if proven untrue, they can descend--by virtue of definition--into the muck and mire of "erroneous classification

Based the above your are essentially saying there is a truth box and a false box and we must put true things in the truth box and false things in the false box. So where would you put following statement?

This statement is false

[lsbskins1]

There only things you can know for sure are a priori. We defined them to be true.


The rest of the stuff you can only believe to be true, but you can't prove it to be true.

The above statement limits the discussion to the philosophical sphere. You are insisting on using a legal or common usage definition for your philosophical assertion. This is wrong/inapproprite. A priori, in the philosophical sphere does NOT include the "assumed". It includes only that which can be known without prior learning or experience and to assume, you must have prior experience. So, either your first statement is invalid or your definition is incorrect. Which is it?

[tman_ndsu08]

I can know that "all white polar bears are polar bears" is a true statement without ever having experianced a polar bear or the color white.

That's utterly inside the philosophical sphere.

[lsbskins1]

No, you can not. Because you must know what a polar bear is to know that. Or you must be able to recognize a pattern, which requires knowing what a pattern is. All require some level of observation of previous experiences. I am not challenging the ultimate truth of the red dog/ polar bear statements. That is another matter entirely. I am saying you are erroroniously defining a priori within your own construct.

[tman_ndsu08]

Or you must be able to recognize a pattern, which requires knowing what a pattern is.

You can recognize patterns without experiance.

It's part of the innate ability human brains have to deal in logic.


I can know the statement "all asdj asdijojdas are asdijojdas" is a true statement because I can recognize that even though a particular asdijojdas might be an asdj asdijojdas, it is still a asdijojdas even though I've never experianced an asdijojdas or the qualia asdj.

That's the whole point.

[lsbskins1]

You can recognize patterns without experiance.

It's part of the innate ability human brains have to deal in logic.


I can know the statement "all asdj asdijojdas are asdijojdas" is a true statement because I can recognize that even though a particular asdijojdas might be an asdj asdijojdas, it is still a asdijojdas even though I've never experianced an asdijojdas or the qualia asdj.

That's the whole point.

This is the last time I restate the same point. We are approaching the whole "IS NOT- IS TOO" debacle.

In order to recognize a pattern, you must experience the same thing twice. That requires you to rely on past expierence to compare it to a current experience. That requires expierence. You can't know all anythings are anything without prior expierence of something. Innate ability does not equal innate knowledge.

[tman_ndsu08]

Sorry lsb, you're simply wrong. This is not an issue where it's my opinion vs. your opinion. This is as objective of a fact as 1+1=2.

Contact your local philosophy professor for confirmation if you don't want to believe me.


He'll be happy to tell you that a priori knowledge is without experience.

[lsbskins1]

Now, to put a little of my own spin on the topic:

In the end, we can not know anything. As long as one being retains the capacity to doubt a proposition, it can not be said to be proven. This does not alter it's actual truth, only our capacity to know, absolutely. So, from a purely philosophical point of view, nothing can ever be "KNOWN", because nothing can ever be proven beyond every being's capacity to doubt. What we can do is demonstrate a postulate's viability within the bounds of previously established and agreed upon definitions and shared concepts. How's that?

[lsbskins1]

Sorry lsb, you're simply wrong. This is not an issue where it's my opinion vs. your opinion. This is as objective of a fact as 1+1=2.

Contact your local philosophy professor for confirmation if you don't want to believe me.


He'll be happy to tell you that a priori knowledge is without experience.

Well, since that last statement is exactally the point I have been making all along, I don't understand your point. I am saying YOUR examples of a priori fail precisely because they require experience to be able to support them as true.