/lit/ - Literature

By constructing a dogmatic metaphysical system of categories.

Hi!

>>12513070
by using reason to fuse together disparate concepts that have you have reached an understanding of separately through the use of your senses

>>12513111
Don't you mean intuition?

>>12513111
if sense impressions are a prerequisite then thats a posteriori.

>Jamie get out the sensory deprivation tank! We're going to find the a priori

>>12513123
a priori synthetic judgments require a posteriori experience to be accurate

>>12513137
Anything that requires any experience is not a priori.

People unironically still believing in the analytic/synthetic division

>>12513147
false
my house is on a hill and has support beams holding it up
i know that if the support beams are removed, my house will fall down the hill
i don't need to remove the support beams to know this

>>12513147

>What is Kripke's A Posteriori Necessity
Hesperus is the morning star, which is Venus. Phosphorus is the evening star, which in Venus.
Therefore, Hesperus is Phosphorus. This is necessary knowledge derived from experience, so a priori knowledge cannot be the only necessary knowledge.

>Essentially Ordered Series
You can deduce necessary knowledge if you look at essentially ordered series in nature. A flower pot that is held up by a chainlink that is held up by another chainlink, and that one by another, with the last one held up by a nail in the ceiling. If you remove that nail, the flower pot must fall; this is a necessary deduction without having to actually remove the nail.

You can even describe the same situation with substances of imagination (not that of experience) and come up with the same conclusion.
>>12513157
Another example

>tl;dr
Kantian epistemology is retarded

>>12513157
you need to have experienced the local effects of gravity on earth plus the material properties and so on. a posteriori.

>>12513157
You gained this knowledge a posteriori by experimenting with toy blocks as a child and your ordinary experiences of the effects of gravity. Try again.

>>12513221
speaks loud, says nothing.

>>12513243
Hmm, everyone thought Kripke said a lot when he showed you can deduce necessary knowledge from contingent observation; Hesperus=Phosphorus.

>>12513237
>>12513227
i don't think i could have explained it clearer. pure a priori reasoning is impractical and basically impossible. synthetic a priori judgments are a compromise between reason, empiricism, and intuition.
this feels like gang trolling. there's no way this many people are this dense.

>>12513147
This is a problem of misunderstanding Kant's particular vernacular when it comes to metaphysics. Read the introduction of the Critique of Pure Reason.

>>12513290
Well, when you give a clear example of a posteriori knowledge, and insist that it's a priori knowledge, you should not be surprised at correction from multiple people. These terms are quite clear.

>>12513303
No, Kant reiterates the statement many times throughout the Critique and the Prolegomena; besides, it doesnt come from some authority on his part, but from the literal concept of "prior to."

>>12513271
Whatever Kripke said, I'm more interested in what you say, since we are talking, and him and Kant are not here.

>>12513070

>>12513389
the house on the hill example of synthetic a priori judgment is literally stolen from kant's critique, you are just dumb or trolling

>>12513849

No I don't believe he uses that example in any of his critiques, or in any writing of his that I've read.

Kant does use the example of a house in the first critique, but the example is of a house that remains standing as you look it over from top to bottom. The point he illustrates with it is that we can distinguish between subjective vs. objective series of appearances (when I look at a house and move my head up and down, and have the subjective sensations of seeing the roof first then seeing the base afterwards, this subjective sequence does not mean that the house's roof objectively exists first and then the base of the house exists afterward), so Kant's original point was quite different also.

>>12513070
They're called instincts, and the knowledge animals have of stuff like migration patterns are proof of them.
Kant was a bitch about ethics, but right about literally everything else.

>>12513070

>>12514043
>The expression 'a priori' does not, however, indicate with sufficient precision the full meaning of our question. For it has been customary to say, even of much knowledge that is derived from empirical sources, that we have it or are capable of having it a priori, meaning thereby that we do not derive it immediately from experience, but from a universal rule -- a rule which is itself, however, borrowed by us from experience. Thus we would say of a man who undermined the foundations of his house, that he might have known a priori that it would fall, that is, that he need not have waited for the experience of its actual falling. But still he could not know this completely a priori. For he had first to learn through experience that bodies are heavy, and therefore fall when their supports are withdrawn. In what follows, therefore, we shall understand by a priori knowledge, not knowledge independent of this or that experience, but knowledge absolutely independent of all experience.

>>12514048
Fuck off.

>>12513070
>How are synthetic a priori judgements possible?
They aren't. He was talking out of his ass. Non-Euclidean Geometry and the Theory of Relativity basically swept away his house of cards.

>>12513147
Judgments that are a priori (which is to say universal judgments) which require an experiential or empirical element are considered "impure" a priori judgments.

>>12514136

Very good, there it is, thanks - the example of the standing house tends to get cited more in the secondary literature I think, so it sticks in my mind.

>>12513070
they're not
>>12514043
>
Kant does use the example of a house in the first critique, but the example is of a house that remains standing as you look it over from top to bottom. The point he illustrates with it is that we can distinguish between subjective vs. objective series of appearances (when I look at a house and move my head up and down, and have the subjective sensations of seeing the roof first then seeing the base afterwards, this subjective sequence does not mean that the house's roof objectively exists first and then the base of the house exists afterward), so Kant's original point was quite different also.
what a giga brainlet
>>12514048
no he wasn't, he's one of the single dumbest pseuds to ever participate in the great collective project to confute, distort and convolute humanity's "understanding" of Self and World. Probably has done more damage to our conception of knowledge than any other single person, Descartes the closest competition he has.

>>12513070
Through pure practical reason. Connecting the moral law to the freedom of actions.

>>12514350
You're a fucking idiot.

>>12513070
instinct; generally analogies that are found in common with wide varieties of things. Intense abstracting of the abstract.

>>12514369
>>12514048
instinct is proof of objective reality
the definition of objective reality is genetic material (DNA), it is the consciousness of life (as an abstract body)
instinct is encoded in genetic material

reality evolves through the actions of life, of DNA, which create deeper reality by recombining the present elements.

I heard that a guy called Christopher Langan has a theory that describes this though I haven't yet bothered - 'CTMU'

>>12513070
>>12513087
DIALECTICS
Empiricism is superior.

>>12514389
>instinct is encoded in genetic material
Brainlet, RNA and epi-genetics mean this is all arbitrary.

>>12513070
Isn’t depth perception a priori? You don’t have to learn/experience distance. The approximation of nearness can be one such judgement then.

>>12513070
They aren't, just as maths aren't, or causality isn't. But we need these things to become stronger as a race.

>>12514400
in what way, you fucking retard?
instinct is in DNA, it is probably in epigenetic devices also, though only augmenting archetypes of perception and motivation from DNA, but it's all still GENETIC MATERIAL you fucking moron

just because some faggot scientist says its "epi"-genetic doesn't mean it's not genetic material - it still dictate how the organism comes into manifestation. Jargon bots.

>>12514944
If your epi-genetics can change genetic expression there is no objectivity in instinct. It's subject to change.

It isn't, Hume literally had it all figured out before Kant came along and ruined philosophy for the next century

>>12514048
>>12514389
>>12514201
What a shitty fucking thread

>>12514955
epigenetics ARE genetic expression, holy shit are you illiterate AND retarded?

ALSO

epigenetic behavior is governed by DNA, it's DNA augmenting its own behavior

ALSO

DNA is always subject to change, that's the fucking point of it, to change and fill the world with living processes

jesus christ why are you so fucking stupid, you literally don't know the first thing about ANYTHING

>>12515361
imagine being this wrong

>>12515372
imagine being wrong, having your only 'argument' be a meme form of just saying 'i'm right you're wrong', believing you're right, and being this sanctimonious about it

>>12515400
Your epigenetics expressed into a lil bitch

>>12514955
>implying objective reality isn't subject to change
wow I bet you have an argument that would impress and amaze

>>12515403
>>>/b/
off you go

>>12515404
U cant percieve it

>>12513156
The way you can tell an analytic philosopher apart from other philosophers is that they are boring and do nothing original or even solve anything.

>>12515513
>analytic philosopher

Is there any other type?

>>12514179
>They aren't
That's just, like, your apriori man.

>>12515452
You can't perceive basic logic because you're a fucking idiotic cunt. You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You’re a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won’t have sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot.

>>12513070
through faculties

>>12515811
In other words, what you severely lack. Fucking idiotic imbecile. Cocksucking ogre. Bitch.

>>12515403
I don't know about the science but from a debate standpoint, BTFO

>>12515857
The only thing that blown the fuck out is your dirty asshole that gets used like a fucking bicycle pump by crackheads around Toronto.

>>12515881
Normally I'd make a joke about your emotional instability but that was pretty funny, why the fuck what a crackhead need a bike pump though

>>12515852
he just wanted someone to complete Nietzsche's sentence

>>12513104
Underrated philosopher.

>>12513070
It's just a way of saying that although all knowledge is technically a posteriori, some (very few) truths are evident from the mere fact that you experience at all. I think it's distinction worth noting, but I don't like how it's framed as an actual epistemological dichotomy.

I wish there was a trend in philosophy to consolidate many of the imagined dichotomies which plague it, but I suppose that's asking too much.

>>12516145
Indeed.

>>12514179
>Non-Euclidean Geometry and the Theory of Relativity basically swept away his house of cards.
No they didn't, you don't even know the math of these subjects, pseud

>>12514392
Empiricism only exists as a subcategory of Rationalist epistemology

>>12513070
Unsurprisingly everyone here is wrong. Synthetic a priori judgements are possible because of the a priori intuiton of space and time with the categories. The classic example given by Kant is math. We get the intuition of numbers through space and time and we get the concepts through the categories allowing us to make synthetic judgements of math.

>>12514136
>Knowledge independent of all experiences

>>12513849
>>12513157
Don't be so fucking wrong next time if you had no experience there's no way to know if it will fall. The only things that are synthetic a priori are those which use the categories and space and time as pure intuitions

>>12516655
Based upon what? Logic? Oh... But anon, don't you have to observe the consistency of relations for logic to mean anything?

>>12516729
Yeah, but just because certain intuitions are built into our sensory apparatus, doesn't mean experience isn't required. You still have to actually observe that you exist to have the knowledge 'I exist'.

Numbers are abstractions upon those basic intuitions, they don't just jump out without language and abstraction. You present it like numbers are immediately obvious, but it involves much more experience than that.

I agree that a few certain truths are so indisputable and immediately evident that they deserve a distinct category, but strictly speaking all knowledge does require experience.

>>12517033
>Based upon what? Logic? Oh... But anon, don't you have to observe the consistency of relations for logic to mean anything?
Mathematics/computation is a superclass over physics which is a superclass over neurology which is a superclass over language/linguistics.
There is no other way for it to be, logic is a supercategory over physics so of course our senses will perceive it - there is no other way for it to be in the first place.

>>12517059
Well, I'd say physics is the overarching superset. It doesn't matter for the argument though, the point is that experience is technically required for knowledge of anything -- experience is a kind of evidence.

>>12517070
>Well, I'd say physics is the overarching superset
Well, you'd be wrong so it doesn't matter, it's not about what "you'd say"
>It doesn't matter for the argument though, the point is that experience is technically required for knowledge of anything -- experience is a kind of evidence.
False, even in the realm of science there are multiple events of scientists predicting existence or mathematical formulation of phenomenon prior to any existence or experience of it and it being discovered years later. Especially in mathematics.

>>12513070
this is what happens when you let pseuds try to explain how the brain works. please read books before you try to think about complex ideas, or else you're missing everything and playing a game of circlejerk

>>12517091
The brain is based on laws of physics which is a subclass of mathematics and computation.
If you want to analyze the entire thing, you study mathematics and computation.

>>12514955
this isn't how genes work. your genes are identical to mine, and to the guy you're arguing with. the odds that you contain even a single unique genome are basically zero. what's unique is your correlation structure, how your genes are arranged, which might turn out to be fluid- hence epigenetics.

Bump

>>12513423
Yeah I am saying what Kripke said, regarding A Posteriori Necessity.

So, let's hear why that wasn't an example of deducing necessary truths from contingent empiricism. I will definitely push my point of an essentially order series being contingent observation but deducing a necessary truth that the flower pot would fall without having to observe any falling happening.

And this necessary truth can also be demonstrated in symbolic logic, but it's still derivative of contingent observation, without itself being subject to contingent observation.

>not being a BASED Kantian

Can someone tell a brainlet what to read by Kripke and related commenters?

>>12518760
Kantianism is the peak and goal of philosophy.

>>12518767
Naming and necessity obvi

>>12518803
thx senpai

>>12517087
Yeah, using methods which required observation to develop (yes, mathematics is first built upon observations of basic relations and abstracted further from there). Am I supposed to be dumbfounded by the fact that systems based upon logical relations which we have experienced can predict things which we haven't? Don't be so fucking dense.

Oh yeah, what "I'd say" doesn't matter but you can be declarative till the cows come home and that's all hunky-dory.

bump

>>12516729
>Unsurprisingly everyone here is wrong. Synthetic a priori judgements are possible because of the a priori intuiton of space and time with the categories. The classic example given by Kant is math. We get the intuition of numbers through space and time and we get the concepts through the categories allowing us to make synthetic judgements of math.

Dooptie doo don't mind >>12513708 la la la

>>12516729
Unsuprisingly you are wrong. Math is only “a priori” because you have sensuous experience with value in the form of phenomenal objects you have interacted with. Independent of those, numbers would have zero meaning to you.

Most of the anons here are confused about what "a priori" means for Kant.

A representation R is a priori if consciousness of R is simultaneous with the consciousness of the necessity and universality of R. That's it.

It doesn't matter if R is only recognized with the aid of empirical data - such data, being a posteriori, is logically insufficient to explain the necessity and universality that R self-evidently has (such data is insufficient due to the problem of induction). For Kant - as anons should know - just because knowledge arises with experience does not mean that such knowledge is derived from experience.

>>12513070
who gives a shit? philosophy is gay

>>12521223
/thread

>>12521223
Isn't experience itself the required empirical data/evidence though? It's not that empirical data is insufficient, it's just that the first instance of empirical data (experience of existence) is entirely sufficient for the most apodictic truths. I'm not sure your distinction between 'arising with' and 'derived from' experience is well-defined. I think designating certain truths as apodictic is enough of a special category -- we shouldn't unecessarily invent dichotomies which many will mistake as concrete ones.

>>12521865
Not the commenter you are replying to, but I’d say: yes. Without experience there can be no ability to synthesize reality which is required for a priori logic. I think it’s irrelevant that you can synthesize a problem and release that it “must be” because this ability to reason is only possible because of similar sensuous knowledge. You don’t need to relearn how to use a key on each new door you come to but only because experience has allowed you the reasoning faculty to extrapolate a priori. Without the initial experience this wouldn’t be possible so the two or interwoven.

>>12522716
Agreed. Nice analogy.

>>12521576
Philosophy is actually asexual.

>>12516145
Hes labelled the greatest Philosopher of the second half of the 20th Cnetury; how the fuck is that underrated?