Talk:A priori and a posteriori
Page contents not supported in other languages.
![]() | Latin High‑importance | ||||||
|
Changed "she would not experience the world as an orderly rule governed place" to "she would not experience the world as an orderly, rule-governed place." The phrase was annoying to read as it was unclear as well as grammatically incorrect. I also added a hyphen to "rule governed place" because the phrase "rule-governed" is describing "place" and reads a bit better.
I created this article to merge the a priori entry (at least the philosophical part) and the a posteriori entry (that is, the empirical knowledge entry). I hope no one minds. I checked the talk pages and people seemed to want to disambiguate the philosophical use of the term "a priori" from the non-philosophical uses. Furthermore, the a priori and a posteriori entries were both slim and the two are best presented together. There wasn't much talk going on those talk pages either. - Jaymay 07:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User Ajo Mama has suggested some sort of merger. I'm not sure exactly what he wants merged and why. It would be nice if Ajo Mama would clarify here on the talk page. - Jaymay 23:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of this entry needs cleaning up (and expansion--see below). The notion of the a priori and related issues is a huge area of philosophy and even affects metaphilosophical issues. Hopefully it can be made up to be a great article, since it's so central to the discipline. - Jaymay 07:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recently reverted some changes that Prokaryote made, only because they seem pretty important:
- Jaymay 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I have a lot of punctuation (of mine) to clean up, then. To note: the Wikipedia manual of style still recommends writing full sentences with the periods, etc. within the quotation marks (except for questions about statements). As for the learning thing: I've been under the impression (right or wrong) that "learning" is synonymous (on some level) with "acquiring knowledge." I'll leave it the way you put it, though, since I'm not altogether familiar with acadamic usage of the word "learning." Prokaryote 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Updating the learning thing: the SEP article on belief includes the following sentence: "When someone learns a particular fact, for example, when Kai reads that some astronomers no longer classify Pluto as a planet, he acquires a new belief (in this case, the belief that some astronomers no longer classify Pluto as a planet)." Right, wrong, colloquial, ??? use of the word "learns"? Prokaryote 04:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something to think about re: my use of the word "learning" and epistemology: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/learning-formal/ Prokaryote 04:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The example used in the first paragraph states: "'No light escapes black holes,' is a theory deduced from empirical physics". Although the example is used in support of a priori knowledge, the phrasing, especially the use of the word "empirical" seems to relate it to a posteriori knowledge. Also, in this specific example, whether the knowledge used to justify the proposal is empirical is debatable, since it comes from ab initio mathmatical proofs and "thought experiments". In order for the justifying knowledge to be considered a posteriori the experiments would (arguably) have needed to be based on experience and provide observable and measurable results.
Might more mundane and less debatable examples serve the article better for the purposes of clarity? For example, something like:
"The proposal 'every living human has a brain' is based on a priori knowledge, since we don't have to perform surgery in order to justify it. On the other hand, the proposal 'the light bulb is currently illuminated' is based on a posteriori knowledge, namely our experience of what a light bulb and its surrounding environment looks like when an active source of light is present".
WonderWander (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has a lot of section, but very little in each. Hopefully people can expand the section and provide sources for claims, quotes, etc. - Jaymay 07:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the article is focused on aprior[ic]ity. That's... problematic. Also, I'm (right now) not so hot when it comes to citation. I mean, I want to do it, and do it right, but I don't have the much in the way of resources (aside from secondhanding the SEP/IEP, but I want to ask the relevant authors for permission first, or whatever, when it comes to that). Prokaryote 02:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article that cites to Aristotle's Organon, where much of the conceptual basis for a priori and a posteriori thinking was laid down. Certainly there is a semantic change over time regarding the a priori concept, moving from existance/essence to likelihood of event having happened. There is also a change for a posteriori, moving from essence to contingent fact to likelihood of dependant event. Still, without the framework of Aristotle there is not any 'beginning' of the field save for Plato's many stories. Organon includes other elements: ontology, classification, etc beyond Prior Analytics and Posterior Analytics that provide a basis for categorical logic and even include basics of statistics (but without numbers). The chapters on Prior and Posterior Analytics should be mentioned at the least in this article. Dvandusen (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How can I incorporate the info on apriority that I've located in the S.E.P. and the I.E.P. without violating copyright? HAVE I violated copyright? Prokaryote 04:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should some of the phenomenological philosophers such a Drs. Josef Siefert or Dietrich von Hildebrand be mentioned? Von Hildebrand has given one of the best definitions of a priori vis a vis a whole person experience in his book "What is Philosophy."
Siefert gives a wonderful example of using a priori in his work "Back to Things in Themselves." http://www.iap.li/oldversion/site/research/Back_to_Things_Themeselves/Back_to_Things_In_Themeselves.pdf--user:Ginot 00:01, Oct 01, 2005 (EDT)
I think some facts need to be checked. Quine accepts that there is a priori knowledge? He demolished the analytic/synthetic distinction! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.175.19.63 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "Both terms appear in Euclid's Elements" should be re-phrased. We are dealing with two Latin phrases, but Euklid's Elements are originally written in Ancient Greek. Either it should be stated that the original concepts are mentioned there (but not with these phrases), or that these terms have later been used in a Latin translation of the Elements (or possibly both). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.239.110.190 (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prokaryote recently added a reference note/citation to Quine. I modified the format just a bit to accord with the majority of the other philosophy articles on Wikipeida: I added a "Notes" section, for the citations to go under. Preferably we can have all the references (the books and articles) in the "References and further reading" section, and then just refer to those in the endnotes of the "Notes" section. Hope that sounds good. A quetsion for Prokaryote though: Why did you make the Quine citation under some info about Leibniz? Maybe it should be more clear why you're citing Quine there. - Jaymay 23:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, how's it look? Definitely not perfect. But, hopefully, better. Prokaryote 07:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the "before experience" & "after experience" definition doesn't follow the whole gamut of the possible philosophic interpretation of thr word. Dictionary.com defines it fairly well under 'A Priori' as "from a general law to a particular instance; valid independently of observation." and 'A Posteriori' as "from particular instances to a general principle or law; based upon actual observation or upon experimental data". It doesn't necessarily have to, however, imply 'experience' but rather before or after being posited. Such as a dialectical 'a priori synthesis' in an idealistic dialectic; i.e. a synthesis having always been there and only separated by abstraction. Nagelfar 21:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence of the entry is ″A priori knowledge is independent from current experience (e.g., as part of a new study).″What is ″current experience″ suppose to mean? The whole point of a priori knowledge is that it is independent of any experience, not only current experience. See IEP definition of a priori [1]. If a proposition is dependent on future experience is it then a priori knowledge? I would say it is neither a priori nor knowledge.Real Pattern (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it pronounced: ah-pree-ori, or ay-pry-oriy? 128.6.175.30 14:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is a priori ever hyphenated? It seems like it should be, but I almost never see it. —Ben FrantzDale 13:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you use "a priori" capitalized? I've changed put up the lowercase template to show that it shouldn't. --165.230.46.142 19:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone figure out what a large copy of Courbet's L'Origine du Monde is doing over the article? I can't seem to spot what's causing it in the article source. ink_13 04:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there any objection to spell the term 'a-priori' to avoid confusion with the English article 'a', especially in situation where the term is broken into two lines? --Sascha.leib 11:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one that feels this article is especially confusing? Surely the concept of a priori can be summed up succinctly for people that do not already understand the concept. If you have no prior knowledge of the term, this article is very much unhelpful. I can assure you of this, as I stumbled across the page without knowing of this term. In the end, I checked other resources for a definition of the terms.
I understand (as stated in the article) that the meaning is up for debate, but this doesn't seem to me a good excuse for avoiding an attempt at defining it. Nearly every sentence in the opening pages of the article is apologetic rather than informative. 198.144.206.231 07:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about this sentence:"The American philosopher Saul Kripke (1972), for example, provided strong arguments against this position." What position, exactly, is being referred to? Ricklaman (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The example put by the definition of a priori knowledge is argued to be a posteriori as well, since a human being to the base needs some sort of language to even think about certain things. So therefore, a human being also needs language to think about 2 + 2 = 4, so, a posteriori, since a language is only mastered through experience. I have added a piece about posteriori and priori in the knowledge article. See there for more examples. I am not saying I know better, but I heard some good arguments. I know if you think about language being a requisite, you must eliminate a lot in the article. Mallerd 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a seperate section on the highly controvertial area of the synthetic apriori. I searched wiki, expecting to find a seperate article on the subject but was re-directed to the synthetic/analytic distinction, an awful article, so came here, a little better, but dont you think the synthetic apriori needs to be clearly delineated as there will be people searching for it specifically. Wireless99 11:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, statements that are a priori true are tautologies.
This sentence doesn't even make sense. It does not use "other words," it uses only an "other word." English is a contextual and descriptive language. One-word definitions are rarely enough to convey anything of meaningful value.
Granted, if a reader wanted to know more about tautologies, he/she could follow the link, however, a general definition with a link for further study is far more useful in providing understanding, context, and meaning.
In other words, this sentence does not explain why a priori statements, which are true, are tautologies, and why a priori statements which are false, are not.
Tanstaafl28 11:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with the presentation of Hume's beliefs. From my reading, I understand Hume to believe that all knowledge is a posteriori. The section in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding preceding the one mentioned that delineates "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact" explains his belief that all ideas are derived from impressions. This would support my belief that Hume thinks that all knowledge is a posteriori. Indeed, the article on this piece describes him as an empiricist. I grant that I haven't been reading Hume for long, but it seems to me there's a contradiction. The Fwanksta 03:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Absolutely endorse the above 85.77.125.19 (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" are used in philosophy to distinguish between deductive and inductive reasoning, respectively.
Eh?--Philogo 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The opening paragraph gives "all bachelors are unmarried" as an example of a priori. Is this a good example? Is it even a correct example? That all bachelors are unmarried is simply by definition. It is a matter of semantics not of knowledge. Arguably our knowing that all bachelors are unmarred does come from experience...our experience of learning that the word "bachelor" means "unmarried".--Ericjs (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this example is correct, and a good one. Yes, understanding it requires knowledge of English, but so does the entire article. What we are talking about here is the "notion" of a bachelor as an unmarried male (unmarried and male also being "notions"). Therefore this example would work in any language, as long as the correct notions are conveyed. Bachelor does not mean "unmarried," it means "unmarried male," and therefore this is not a straight definition, though it is a tautology (though both definitions and tautologies constitute a priori knowledge). A similar example would be that the sum of the angles in a triangle must equal 180 degrees.72.177.83.171 (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This example is incorrect, as pointed out in the first note of this section. It IS merely a definition. The defining element of "bachelor" is NOT that it refers to a male; it is that it refers to an UNMARRIED one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.40.254 (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reading the above questions/comments I feel something is missing. you could be a deaf mute living in a tribe and over time you could develop a notion of what a bachelor is conceptually based on your observations of behavior. Isn't that the definition of what a bachelor is in the statement "all bachelors are unmarried", the relationship between the references, not the fact that these are words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:1D29 (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, there needs to be four seperate articles for
And that includes NOT redirecting synthetic a priori to Analytic-synthetic distinction. Even analytic a posteriori should have its own article, despite Kant's rejection of it. Such an article should of course include Kant's (and others') justification for rejecting it, but there are others, (e.g., Stephen Palmquist), who argue that analytic a posteriori knowledge not only exists, but is even important. EPM (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following material has been pasted into a number of articles with only tenuous connection to the topic; I have reverted and retain the content here:
--Mavigogun (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would the idea that George V must have reigned for at least a day if at all have to be based on some understanding that the word "reigned" directly implies this in order to be a priori? If so, and if "reigned" does not imply a minimum length of one day, the suggestion could be added that something like "If George V reigned at all, then he reigned for some amount of time." would be a priori. The same section of the article mentions varying usage of the terms and if the Fodor citation is in fact being used to exemplify this more explanation would be helpful. DearthOfMateriel (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. I'm sure there are some rulers in history who have not held power for even a full day, and even if there were no real-world examples, the idea certainly isn't inconceivable. I will edit this. 96.10.232.194 (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the subsection "Relation to the analytic-synthetic", after quoting Quine, the article says:"Analytic propositions are thought to be true in virtue of their meaning alone, while a priori synthetic propositions are thought to be true in virtue of their meaning and certain facts about the world."
To my mind, this does not support the notion expressed in the final sentence that summarises the section:"However, most philosophers at least seem to agree that while the various distinctions may overlap, the notions are clearly not identical: the a priori/a posteriori distinction is epistemological, the analytic/synthetic distinction is linguistic, and the necessary/contingent distinction is metaphysical."
If, indeed, an a priori synthetic proposition is one that notices "certain facts about the world", it is one that derives its knowledge not solely from language, but also from a theory of how we can know things (in this case, by "facts", however ascertained) - in other words, an epistemology.
The weasel words "most philosophers ... seem to agree" also worry me. Why pretend there is a consensus when there so clearly isn't? yoyo (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is worldwide philosophical consensus on apriori nature of knowledge of the world. If man is endowed with only one medium to experience the physical world (five senses)any evidence whatever it might be could only be known through human senses. In this case, the evidence relied upon by the science to prove a theory that x (physical being/thing)is y is either apriori or a false claim. When science doubts human experience through his senses for being unreliable to know the objective truth of the physical world it alleviates scientific evidence to a level more than senses. However, this situation is self contradictory in so far as the scientists ultimately rely on their own senses to grasp\experience and understand the evidence at hand. If one can reject senses and the experience derived through the medium of senses is unreliable (according to science) then there is no way man can ever learn the objective truth of the physical world. How do you know if a glass of orange juice is infact orange juice? Scienctific evidence does not prove if orange juice is orange juice. whatever evidence experiments reveal could be anything but the objective truth. This is that fact that man has a physical limitation so far as his ability to perceive the world outside of him i.e man cannot do away with his senses and continue perceving the world.This leaves only two possibilities so far as truth revealed by scientific evidence. Evidence by itself does not prove anything. Humans first believe in something (apriori) and then look for justification acceptable to all his peers. If some evidence is acceptable to all then they claim the truth proved by the evidence.orThey simply claim x is proof y. There is no way this can be either proved or disproved..same like God or spirit or ghost.
Humans first believe in something and then try to confirm its acceptability with their peers. Scientific method is one of the many ways humans try to confirm their beliefs.124.124.230.149 (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Latin, the preposition a (short for ab) usually means "from", and both priori and posteriori are rendered in the dative case. However, this preposition takes only the ablative case, which would require the words to be rendered as priore and posteriore.
As written, these phrases are both nonsensical and grammatically incorrect. To salvage it with minimal modification, in the context of worldly knowledge gained in the presence or absence of experience, to render such phrases as "knowledge from prior/posterior to experience" as Kant presumably intended, it's actually experientia that would be rendered in the dative if anything would be, not prior or posterior: Scientia a priore/posteriore experientiae. Or even more correctly, one would use entirely different words: the prepositions ante and post. Scientia <scita> ante/post experientiam, knowledge <having been known> prior to/posterior to experience.
This misuse of Latin reflects Kant's ignorance of the language, just as most of the contents of his Critique of Pure Reason reflect his ignorance of mathematics. He was, in truth, a pretty shabby philosopher. Aristotle did much more with much less to use as a basis. --173.230.96.116 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By contrast, consider the proposition, "If George V reigned at all, then he reigned for a finite period of time." This is something that one knows a priori, because it expresses a statement that one can derive by reason alone.
This is not true: one would need to consult experience to know that it is impossible for a person to reign forever, or to have reigned forever. These facts cannot be deduced from reason independent of knowledge of reality.
People who are babysitting this article, get your shit together. Please. --173.230.96.116 (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! We need experience (a posteriori) to know that men are mortal. It is not known a priori. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.1.128 (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. No philosopher am I, but my thought on reading the George example was that this is a fortiori. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:BC52:E72A:3086:3E12 (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It must be noted that the example contains a concrete element: King George V, and therefore, the sentence may not be pure reason. Heavyarms2025 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following in the lede strikesme as inappropriate in the lede and badly phrased:Philogo (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)There are many points of view on these two types of assertion, and their relationship is one of the oldest problems in modern philosophy.[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
By DefinitionIsn't this page confusing a priori</a> knowledge with definitions? I thought a priori</a> knowledge is what we generally know from experience, before looking at the particular case. "Most 20 year old bachelors eventually get married" or "... a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife" would be what I am thinking of. "All bachelors are unmarried" is a definition, isn't it? It doesn't tell us anything about the real world except what we call unmarried men, when we speak English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.50.99 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC) [reply] Please JUSTIFY the inclusion. Occuring on the same web page is not enoughIn the last days I have added in the == See also == section a link to the "Jungian archetypes" article.
stating "This user is pro-cannabis, and opposes bigotry and oppression suffered by cannabis users." is making personal attacks to all those that don't agree with full legalisation of cannabis ("bigotry" could be seen as an insult). There could be several reasons for being against the full legalisation of cannabis. For instance a a serch that uses the keywords "paranoid schizophrenia" and "cannabis" returns 52,300 results. Should I provide a "JUSTIFICATION" for this as well?
Last but not least I have posted this talk page comment in WP:30 in order to see if we can cool down our relationship that, IMHO, is starting to heat up.
|
I am not sure I understand why a priori points here and a posteriori points to A priori and a posteriori. Shouldn't they both point to A priori and a posteriori? speednat (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is an appropriate spot to add a comment about the structure/grammar of just one particular sentence. I just mean to make a note about it, not to be nit-picky. I would edit it myself, however, I don't know enough about the topic to rewrite the sentence and be absolutely sure that I haven't incorrectly changed the meaning of it in the process.
Under "History", the last sentence under "Immanuel Kant" doesn't really make sense. At the very least it's awkwardly stated and difficult to read - see below
"In consideration of a possible logic of the a priori, this most famous of Kant's deductions has made the successful attempt in the case for the fact of subjectivity, what constitutes subjectivity and what relation it holds with objectivity and the empirical."
Thanks, --Jkriplean (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-Change from: These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish "necessary conclusions from first premises" (i.e., what must come before sense observation) from "conclusions based on sense observation" which must follow it.
-Change to: These terms are used with respect to reasoning (epistemology) to distinguish premise-conclusions; from what must come before sense observation-a presence premise; from what must follow sense observation- past future premises.[2]
I am confused by the differences in these sections. I would think the sources would be used in the text and should therefore be citations. If they were not used to write the text shouldn't they be under further reading? DannyHatcher (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
Minimize the number of links. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]