[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 157 KB, 1440x900, 1358644606624.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3431967 No.3431967[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

So /lit/, a priori and a posteriori.

2+2=4

Which is it? It seems obvious that its a priori, but my friend brings up the point that this would only make sense assuming a person already has certain sense date that they got empirically.

Also, he thinks that the sciences can offer examples of a priori, when it seems they should be a posteriori. An example being the definition of mass.

>> No.3431993

2+2 = 4 is a priori. Its truth is independent of any kind of observation. The same goes for the definition of mass.

>> No.3431996

the representation is a posteriori but the knowledge itself is a priori

>> No.3432000

>>3431993
>2+2 = 4
>Its truth is independent of any kind of observation
Nope.

>> No.3432003

>>3431967
Any and all analytic truths are priori.
The only prior 'truth' are mathematics as a whole.

>> No.3432005

>>3431993
Could 2+2=4 be figured out by someone with no senses? It seems you need some understanding of the world before you can use logic.

You can also bring up language

>> No.3432015

>>3431996
What does that even mean?

How can knowledge be a priori

>> No.3432033
File: 6 KB, 335x405, vagina.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3432033

>>3432015
are you fucking kidding me

>> No.3432035

>>3432000
great point

>>3432005
>It seems you need some understanding of the world before you can use logic.

you need logic before you can have any understanding of the world.

>> No.3432042

>>3432015
I was pointing out the accidental conflation of the physical representation of a concept with the concept itself.
>>3432005
Does Plato (or some greek motherfucker idk) bringing out a slave boy and having him demonstrate geometry by drawing it on the sand with a stick with no prior education count?

>> No.3432056

>>3432033
No im not, im currently reading him and considering his ideas.

>>3432035
I dont know about that. It seems it could go either way.

>>3432042
Thats what im getting at, the concept itself. What does that even mean. Right now im playing with the idea if we create these truths or discover them, and youre telling me it seems that we discover them without explaining further.

>>3432042
Not really, since the slave boy already witnesses "causality" through his senses.

>> No.3432065

>>3432056
>Not really, since the slave boy already witnesses "causality" through his senses.
who gave you permission to read kant before reading hume?

>> No.3432074

>>3432056
>>3432056
>>3432056
>No im not, im currently reading him and considering his ideas.

unless you're still reading the title of the book you should know the answer to that question.

> It seems it could go either way

no, it does not. ordered experience [i.e any meaningful experience, not just an arbitrary, asemic collection of lights and sounds] needs to have a framework to be meaningful. vagina calls that framework the pure forms of intuition. his argument is pretty rock solid. tabula rasa is a dumb, discreted idea.

also this >>3432065

>> No.3432079

there is no such thing as a priori

knowledge is justified true belief*

a belief is when you take a sentence to be true

a sentence is a made of words that are learnt through socialization and experience (a posterieieiree)

*inb4 gettier problems

>> No.3432099

>>3432065
Have, thats why I put it in quotations

>>3432074
His answer yes, but possibly not the answer. "that which delivers its doctrines from a priori principles alone we may call pure philosophy. When the later is merely formal it is logic.", and the rest. Im considering if its true.

Why cant a framework be built out of arbitrary events?

>> No.3432121

I never truly believed that priori could actually exist, given I come from a reasonably atheist family, but there is also the possibility that if you are talking about the concept of 2 and the concept of adding 2 and 2 to make 4, that seems pretty priori. There is a 2 in every language and mind, and there is a concept of adding 2 and 2 in every language and mind, so I think it is a reasonable assumption that the representation of 2+2=4 is posteriori.

Thank god there is a part of 4chan that is not totally retarded.

>> No.3432122

ARRIVING AT "4" FROM "2 + 2" IS EMPIRICAL.

ARRIVING AT "2 + 2" FROM "4" IS DEDUCTIVE.

>> No.3432125

>>3432122
I think you mean arriving at 4 from 2+2 is 'inductive'.

>> No.3432128

>>3432121
I dont know if its in every mind.

Again, I bring up a child born without senses, or whatever example of someone who has skewed senses that seems to make it harder to understand how someone can come up with the concepts that were talking about.

>>3432122
>>3432125
oh snap.

>> No.3432136

Is 0.999999999.... = 1 ?

>> No.3432140

>>3432128
Well, as insensitive as this may sound I believe that if a human being has skewed senses that prevents the concept of 2 and whatnot, they seem like more of an exception than part of the rule. For instance, it's like saying that everyone can read except blind people. They sure have the ability to read, but have something preventing the process.

>> No.3432142

>>3432136
Mathematically speaking, yes.

>> No.3433275

Isn't all a priori reasoning tainted by empirical understanding?

That is, I could know 8*7 is 56 a priori, but it took me a couple of tries before I got it right.

>> No.3433818

>>3432099
>Why cant a framework be built out of arbitrary events?

because the concept of "built", "being", "framework" and "event" only have meaning within ordered experience, but definition.

>> No.3434714

>>3433275
this I agree