Can we know anything A Priori now

[The_Truthinator]

In response to the original question:

It seems to me that all our knowledge is based to some degree upon our subjective experiences. We may know that when a friend has just stubbed his toe he is in a great deal of pain as we have “been there, done that,” so to speak.

On the other hand, let’s say that one’s nerves do not function properly. Therefore, this particular person feels no pain when stubbing his toe. However, he is told that it hurts by others. Therefore, he knows that when his friend stubs his toe, it hurts him, even though he has not experienced it. EVEN SO, his knowledge here is due to someone telling him that it hurts. Thus, by acting upon good faith and assuming the fellow that told him this was not lying, he was able to know that it would, in fact, hurt. In this case, it could be argued that this person knows that to stub one’s toe hurts based on a friend’s experiences or another telling him it is so…

Yet our knowledge of the world, by and large, comes from empirical observations, which yield to us information necessary in forming sound conclusions and coming to a certainty of anything.

It’s nearly three in the morning and if I continue, I will become even more circular…

Pax

 

[aquinothomas]

So… is the assumption of the existence of an empty set, a priori? Or is a collection of nothing based on experience. Can you conceive of not having something with having experienced nothing?

The concept of “nothing” is in fact the absence of “something”. If we didn’t have a basic apprehension of being, we couldn’t think of nothingness as a concept. In other words, the concept of “nothing” depends on our concept of being. We think of nothingness as a positive concept, for logical purposes, but it’s merely the absence of something, of which we have a basic apprehension.

Modern scholasticism, typified by Jacques Maritain, puts ontology before epistemology. The foundation of our knowledge is the intuition of being, the perception of ens ut ens. No other system works. Contrary to most “modern” systems (beginning with Descartes), it is rooted in reality and leaves no room for idealism.

This is basically what moderate realism, as an epistemological system, is all about. Our first apprehension is that of the concept of being. Not only does the priority of ontology work as a philosophical system, it jives with common sense. Any philosophical system that contradicts common sense for no good reason (Cartesian rationalism is a good example), immediately loses credibility. Maritain has one of the best critique’s of Descartes I’ve ever read.

Cogito ergo sum… we can at least be sure of our own existence.

This is also a basic apprehension, but the reason we know we exist is not because we’ve constructed a rationalistic system like the Cartesian system. We know we exist because we first apprehend being outside of us, and then via reflection, we know of our own existence. Again, this is in line with common sense. The Cartesian system ultimately leads to solipsism (the only thing I can know is that “I” exist and nothing else with certainty - but this doesn’t really work either).

I agree that Anselm goofed in his initial formulation of the argument in Proslogion I, but the modal version implied in Proslogion III stands, IMHO.

The Guanillo objection doesn’t seem to work either. And, I’ve read modern analytic formulations of the argument (e.g. - Alvin Plantinga), but they seem to fail as well no matter how much modal logic we wrap around it. It still boils down to an ontological leap from thought to existence, and there is no necessary connection between our conception of “perfection” and existence. But, even if we take for granted that this argument could work, it still isn’t a purely a priori argument because it’s an argument from the perfection of being of which we have basic experience before we formulate the argument. For it to work, it would need to be reduced to a cosmological argument (e.g. - Aquinas’ five ways).

 

[aquinothomas]

Yet our knowledge of the world, by and large, comes from empirical observations, which yield to us information necessary in forming sound conclusions and coming to a certainty of anything.

Yes, but just to clarify, it’s also important to realize that we can deduce knowledge about the world which we cannot achieve via direct experience by building upon the knowledge we have from direct experience. For example, our knowledge of mathematics and other universals. In fact, modern science could not succeed as it does unless we believed that universals are inherent in being. All of the “hard sciences” depend on this principle. The scientific method has as its basis deductive logic (which has as its basis, basic experience of being )

 

[The_Truthinator]

^ Good point!

My words, “by and large,” were very intentional. Very safe answer… lol

 

[FrankSchnabel]

The Guanillo objection doesn’t seem to work either. And, I’ve read modern analytic formulations of the argument (e.g. - Alvin Plantinga), but they seem to fail as well no matter how much modal logic we wrap around it. It still boils down to an ontological leap from thought to existence, and there is no necessary connection between our conception of “perfection” and existence. But, even if we take for granted that this argument could work, it still isn’t a purely a priori argument because it’s an argument from the perfection of being of which we have basic experience before we formulate the argument. For it to work, it would need to be reduced to a cosmological argument (e.g. - Aquinas’ five ways).

Hi TomAquino,

I agree that the ontological argument is not a purely a priori argument. For Anselm, it is premised on the human experience of worship, or rather the logic of worship. God is He who is worshipped, and if we could conceive of a greater being, we would worship him instead.

But the argument works for me if the focus in on unsurpassable greatness and not pefection as classically understood. God is the greatest conceivable being. There are two ways of existing, necessarily and contingently. The greater way of existing is the necessary mode, not the contingent mode. Therefore, only necessary existence is compatible with the greatness we ascribe to Deity. God must exist or the idea is nonsense. That is the gist of Prosl III, and even Thomas missed that or was ignorant of it.

cordially,

Frank

 

[BlaineTog]

Something a priori? Sure, easy example: space.

All experiences of things outside you necessarily place those objects in space. Without space, you would not be able to place those objects anywhere. So, you have to have knowledge of space before you experience it. It is a necessary prerequisite to all experience of the outer world, so saying you gain it through experience is like saying you broke a sealed glass container by swinging a hammer sitting inside at it.

Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason may be logically incoherent in the end, but parts of it at least are pretty solid.