a priori vs. a posteriori
Distinction: a priori vs. a posteriori
Domain: Epistemology
Canonical Formulation:
Roughly, a priori knowlegde is knowledge
independent of all experience while a posteriori
knowledge is knowledge possible only through experience. This
distinction's pedigree is quite old and somewhat distinguished.
Kant uses it throughout the _Critique of Pure Reason_ (B3,pg. 43 in
the Kemp-Smith translation). Leibniz made a simlar distinction
between "truths of reason" and "truths of fact" (see vol. 1,
_Encyclopediaof Philosophy, pgs. 140,144). Aristotle also used a
similar distinction(Posterior Analytics, Bk. I, section 2).
Classical Challenge:
It seems that Quine would object to this, seeing how he does object
to the analytic/synthetic distinction. He takes a different view
mathematics and logic, fields traditionally accorded a priori
status. Simon Blackburn writes in the _Oxford Dictionary of
Philosophy_, pg. 21 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994):
"[E]mpiricists have commonly tried to show that [mathematics and
logic] are not areas of real, substantive knowledge, or that in
spite of appearances the knowledge that we have in these areas is
actually dependent on experience. The former line tries to show that
all a priori propositions are in some sense trivial, or analytic, or
matters of notation or conventions of language. The latter approach
is particularly associated with Quine, who denies any significant
split between propositions traditionally thought of as a priori, and
other deeply entrenched beliefs that occur in our overall view of
the world."
----------------
Nathan Pietila Office: (619) 534-6582
Opinion Editor Pager: (619) 516-9627
The UCSD Guardian E-mail: sneed@ucsd.edu
www.ucsd.edu/guardian
Now Check Out Sarah's Formulation