Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Kant and 'Pure A Priori' Cognition

sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 1:26:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
'Pure A Priori' cognition is said to occur entirely 'without reference to' or 'regardless of' experience. However, isn't cognition necessarily tied with the concept of experience? That is, to think is an experience, to think is to experience, and to experience is to think. Therefore, how can it be said that knowledge comes about outside the realm of experience?

If it's not accepted that my knowledge that 1+1=2 comes about solely from the experience of being taught it, could it not be said in a more broad sense that it comes from my experience of cognitively processing numbers? Or, even more broadly, from the experience of being alive?

If knowledge of mathematics exists 'regardless of experience', then why can I not already answer every mathematical question?

Isn't my knowledge that a 'body is extended' gained by processing the definitions of 'body' and 'extended' and by visualising the concept of a 'body' in my mind - all of which could be called experiences?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 8:31:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Interesting.

My understanding of "a priori" is that it dismisses things like a "square circle" because there are definitional properties encapsulated by those words that create conflict and contradiction when juxtaposed in such a manner. It does not require that one actually draw out a circle or a square, it can be known "a priori" that such things are not possible.

If knowledge of mathematics exists 'regardless of experience', then why can I not already answer every mathematical question?

Very good question. O_o
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 7:19:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2013 1:26:07 AM, sdavio wrote:
'Pure A Priori' cognition is said to occur entirely 'without reference to' or 'regardless of' experience. However, isn't cognition necessarily tied with the concept of experience? That is, to think is an experience, to think is to experience, and to experience is to think. Therefore, how can it be said that knowledge comes about outside the realm of experience?

To think is not to experience.


If it's not accepted that my knowledge that 1+1=2 comes about solely from the experience of being taught it, could it not be said in a more broad sense that it comes from my experience of cognitively processing numbers? Or, even more broadly, from the experience of being alive?

Kant would say mathematics is sequential and thus the pure intuition of time is necessary to understand it. You can't understand mathematics without the a priori conditions already in place. The pure intuition of space is also necessary for understanding geometry. This doesn't show necessarily that our knowledge of math is a priori but that there must be some a priori properties necessary for us to understand it.

If knowledge of mathematics exists 'regardless of experience', then why can I not already answer every mathematical question?

I don't think Kant claimed all math is a priori, only abstract math. But even if he did, that does not imply in any way that you would have all knowledge of math. You would have the a priori resources to discover mathematical truths for yourself, the extent of which depending on how intelligent you are. But you would not just know all mathematical truths.


Isn't my knowledge that a 'body is extended' gained by processing the definitions of 'body' and 'extended' and by visualising the concept of a 'body' in my mind - all of which could be called experiences?

No. You don't have to visualize anything. Merely examine the definitions. By the definitions you can assume a body is extended. Definitional knowledge is considered a priori. It's the same thing as "all bachelors are unmarried men". Tuatological truth are a priori since they rest on logic and definition alone.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 7:26:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 7:19:41 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/5/2013 1:26:07 AM, sdavio wrote:
'Pure A Priori' cognition is said to occur entirely 'without reference to' or 'regardless of' experience. However, isn't cognition necessarily tied with the concept of experience? That is, to think is an experience, to think is to experience, and to experience is to think. Therefore, how can it be said that knowledge comes about outside the realm of experience?

To think is not to experience.


If it's not accepted that my knowledge that 1+1=2 comes about solely from the experience of being taught it, could it not be said in a more broad sense that it comes from my experience of cognitively processing numbers? Or, even more broadly, from the experience of being alive?

Kant would say mathematics is sequential and thus the pure intuition of time is necessary to understand it. You can't understand mathematics without the a priori conditions already in place. The pure intuition of space is also necessary for understanding geometry. This doesn't show necessarily that our knowledge of math is a priori but that there must be some a priori properties necessary for us to understand it.

If knowledge of mathematics exists 'regardless of experience', then why can I not already answer every mathematical question?

I don't think Kant claimed all math is a priori, only abstract math. But even if he did, that does not imply in any way that you would have all knowledge of math. You would have the a priori resources to discover mathematical truths for yourself, the extent of which depending on how intelligent you are. But you would not just know all mathematical truths.


Isn't my knowledge that a 'body is extended' gained by processing the definitions of 'body' and 'extended' and by visualising the concept of a 'body' in my mind - all of which could be called experiences?

No. You don't have to visualize anything. Merely examine the definitions. By the definitions you can assume a body is extended. Definitional knowledge is considered a priori. It's the same thing as "all bachelors are unmarried men". Tuatological truth are a priori since they rest on logic and definition alone.

Actually, maybe Kant would say it was synthetic not analytical. I'm not sure.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 7:32:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2013 8:31:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Interesting.

My understanding of "a priori" is that it dismisses things like a "square circle" because there are definitional properties encapsulated by those words that create conflict and contradiction when juxtaposed in such a manner. It does not require that one actually draw out a circle or a square, it can be known "a priori" that such things are not possible.

That's one kind of a priori knowledge, analytical knowledge. Kant argued synthetic a priori knowledge was also possible, such as "every event has a cause". Rationalists had always recognized this as a priori but none that it was synthetic. It's antithesis, "that no event has a cause", is also a priori. Neither of the statements contain any internal contradiction. If the principle of sufficient reason were analytical, it's opposite should be illogical, but it's not, therefore it's synthetic.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 8:26:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 7:32:03 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/6/2013 8:31:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Interesting.

My understanding of "a priori" is that it dismisses things like a "square circle" because there are definitional properties encapsulated by those words that create conflict and contradiction when juxtaposed in such a manner. It does not require that one actually draw out a circle or a square, it can be known "a priori" that such things are not possible.

That's one kind of a priori knowledge, analytical knowledge. Kant argued synthetic a priori knowledge was also possible, such as "every event has a cause". Rationalists had always recognized this as a priori but none that it was synthetic. It's antithesis, "that no event has a cause", is also a priori. Neither of the statements contain any internal contradiction. If the principle of sufficient reason were analytical, it's opposite should be illogical, but it's not, therefore it's synthetic.

This is interesting and I'm not familiar with Kant, however could the "opposite" of "logical" be "a-logical"?

When using "morality" as an example, there's a moral spectrum of moral <==> immoral, but the negation of the spectrum itself would be the lack of the spectrum, i.e. morality <===> amorality.

When I read sdavio's statements, he seems to be looking at the negation of logic itself, i.e. not logical <===> illogical but rather logic <===> a-logic.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 10:15:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2013 8:26:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:32:03 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/6/2013 8:31:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Interesting.

My understanding of "a priori" is that it dismisses things like a "square circle" because there are definitional properties encapsulated by those words that create conflict and contradiction when juxtaposed in such a manner. It does not require that one actually draw out a circle or a square, it can be known "a priori" that such things are not possible.

That's one kind of a priori knowledge, analytical knowledge. Kant argued synthetic a priori knowledge was also possible, such as "every event has a cause". Rationalists had always recognized this as a priori but none that it was synthetic. It's antithesis, "that no event has a cause", is also a priori. Neither of the statements contain any internal contradiction. If the principle of sufficient reason were analytical, it's opposite should be illogical, but it's not, therefore it's synthetic.

This is interesting and I'm not familiar with Kant, however could the "opposite" of "logical" be "a-logical"?

I think illogical would be the opposite, just as immoral, as apposed to amoral, would be the opposite of moral. The negation of logic would be a-logical, be illogical is farther from logical than a-logical is. "This is logical" and "this is illogical" sound more opposite than "this is logical" and this is a-logical". A-logical is closer to logical than illogical is since illogical things have direct logical inconsistencies or contradictions.

When using "morality" as an example, there's a moral spectrum of moral <==> immoral, but the negation of the spectrum itself would be the lack of the spectrum, i.e. morality <===> amorality.

The negation maybe, but moral and immoral are still both opposites.


When I read sdavio's statements, he seems to be looking at the negation of logic itself, i.e. not logical <===> illogical but rather logic <===> a-logic.

Where was he arguing about the negation of logic?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 1:51:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2013 10:15:30 AM, phantom wrote:
At 12/7/2013 8:26:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/7/2013 7:32:03 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/6/2013 8:31:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Interesting.

My understanding of "a priori" is that it dismisses things like a "square circle" because there are definitional properties encapsulated by those words that create conflict and contradiction when juxtaposed in such a manner. It does not require that one actually draw out a circle or a square, it can be known "a priori" that such things are not possible.

That's one kind of a priori knowledge, analytical knowledge. Kant argued synthetic a priori knowledge was also possible, such as "every event has a cause". Rationalists had always recognized this as a priori but none that it was synthetic. It's antithesis, "that no event has a cause", is also a priori. Neither of the statements contain any internal contradiction. If the principle of sufficient reason were analytical, it's opposite should be illogical, but it's not, therefore it's synthetic.

This is interesting and I'm not familiar with Kant, however could the "opposite" of "logical" be "a-logical"?

I think illogical would be the opposite, just as immoral, as apposed to amoral, would be the opposite of moral. The negation of logic would be a-logical, be illogical is farther from logical than a-logical is. "This is logical" and "this is illogical" sound more opposite than "this is logical" and this is a-logical". A-logical is closer to logical than illogical is since illogical things have direct logical inconsistencies or contradictions.

When using "morality" as an example, there's a moral spectrum of moral <==> immoral, but the negation of the spectrum itself would be the lack of the spectrum, i.e. morality <===> amorality.

The negation maybe, but moral and immoral are still both opposites.


When I read sdavio's statements, he seems to be looking at the negation of logic itself, i.e. not logical <===> illogical but rather logic <===> a-logic.

Where was he arguing about the negation of logic?

Apologies, it was in a different thread:

http://www.debate.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?