Forum Moderators: open
Back in the day, I first read it in something or other written by Immanuel Kant (think that's the way it's spelled) a german philosopher from the 19th century ( I believe ).
Though let's leave the controversial bit of his writings for another place -> he said some good things, and some things that were very terrible indeed.
What I want to know is, did he invent the 'a priori' concept / usage, or was it another person?
Last month, I saw in a search engine research paper a reference to a priori knowledge, which surprised me - I hadn't thought to find a reference to the concept outside of philosophical writings / musings, and stuff written by folks like myself who are either over educated, or just aspire to become over educated. :)
Any reference would be greatly appreciated, I have no a priorio knowledge of the origin, so need some help here.
The idea may have been around for longer under different names. It wouldn't surprise me if Plato had said something about it, though probably not in latin words.
And yes, using the term in non-philosophical context is not uncommon, if a person wants to sound particularly smart... ;)
in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences...
But then the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses the term in reference to Augustine's responses to Aristotle & Plato's ideas: [utm.edu...]
Augustine sides with Plato's account of the universals, because he believed Aristotle's version did not adequately separate human abilities from those of the beasts. Aristotle believed universals were arrived at only through experience, which, to Augustine, could be accomplished by lower animals as well. For Augustine, humans are unique in our their ability to grasp a priori truths. (italics in original)
Are you looking for where the concept was first used, or where that specific term was first used to describe the concept?
So, I would still stick Kant as the originator.
Was simple curiousity, I haven't studied / read nearly enough philosophy to answer any of my own questions, but rather, enough to have a small, small clue about some of the foundations of 'western thinking' ( I believe ).
Kant is indeed the first name that springs to mind
Kant was not the first to use the concept of a priori knowlede - it has been around since latin. I'm also quite sure that Kant wasn't even the first to name knowledge independent of experience "a priori". What Kant did was argue that a priori knowledge concerns only necessary truths. So he must have heard the phrase somewhere.
I do know that Descartes also used the phrase in his writings and he was born at the very end of the 15th century - so it has been around for a good while.
Then Occam called all those followers of realism fools, and started talking about empiricism and nominalism. That was the start that Locke and Hume needed.
The debate is still on about whether people are born with a priori knowledge of concepts or born tabula rasa. Of course the contradictions between Plato's Ideas and Aristotelian Forms are still evident, and those fans of Aristotle are quite familiar with fuzzy logic.
A 2300 year-old contradiction resolved with fuzzy logic. And I thought the law of excluded third simply meant if you plan on driving you can't have that third whiskey...
The tao te ching is older than that, and outlines the 'principles' of fuzzy logic very well.
Then there is an ancient system of math that predates the Tao Te Ching from India that isn't true / false based, but base 10, similar to the decimal system (though I'm NOT familiar with that math system, so I may have it wrong).
By the law of the excluded 3rd, are you referring to conundrums which can't exist according to aristotle?
hm...the first western guy to prove that false was Max Black right, in the 1930's, with multi variable calculus...?
Then came Zadeh in the 60's with Fuzzy logic...
Though I have heard of Locke & Hume, not familiar with their works. :)
So conceptually, that term was around since Plato -> ok, that makes sense...but, verbally, perhaps originated with Descartes?
Surely there must be a version of some of that French dudes writings online someplace (in English, can't read French). Wasn't he some noble that got bored watching bugs walking across his ceiling, and then came up with linear algebra as well? X,Y coordinate stuff & all that?
Boy am I confused...did I say I was educated? oops. :)
The law of excluded thirds is binary. :) There are true statements and false statements and there are no alternatives.
Aristotelian logic is the basis of most algorithms, and most notably, propositional logic. The contradiction I was speaking of was between the theory of mind, (or Aristotelian Theory of Form) and logic. Perlovsky wrote about fuzzy logic striving to reconcile the contradiction.
Descartes - Made a connection between algebra and geometry which allowed for geometry problems to be solved with algebraic equations but it was Meditationes de Prima Philosophia that made him famous. That and of course, cogito ergo sum. Which has been attacked quite often. How does he know he's thinking?
Meditations was written in Latin and translated into French in 1647.
[philos.wright.edu...]
Kant has become so famous because his ideas in this area were widely accepted as the "right" approach (and almost universally accepted as brilliant) for a long time.
He postulated 12 categories which a mind would have to have innate knowledge of in order to recognisably make sense of the world as a human being does (concept of things, one and more than one, things have properties etc). While his concepts have mostly been left by the wayside by 20th century debates about these issues, it is quite widely believed that minds must have some kind of a priori framework with which we have the ability to interpret experiences.
Most of this debate has been taken over by anthropologists and linguistic philosophers in the 20th century - with philosophers giving it quite a wide berth generally - check out Chomsky if you want to read more.
Surely there must be a version of some of that French dudes writings online someplace (in English, can't read French). Wasn't he some noble that got bored watching bugs walking across his ceiling, and then came up with linear algebra as well? X,Y coordinate stuff & all that?
Descartes was the guy who came up with "I am thinking, therefore I am". I don't think he was a noble who got bored watching bugs walking across his ceiling - he had to move to Holland for fear of his life - because of his "heretical" views. Most of his writings are also available in english - every first year philosophy student has a copy of at least Meditations on First Philosophy. You can find some of his writings here: [google.com...] (we should be ok for copyright here - he's been dead 350 years).
Ended the class with Alistair MacIntyre (spelling?) the chap who said basically, "life is like a story" which told me that things had really gone full circle, because I thought stories were supposed to be like life.
Though that begs the question of life imitate art, etc.
>>>bugs & math
I recalled that bit from high school when learning about the x,y stuff -> because that was the way that my teacher referred to him & the Cartesian plane.
Even illiterate people have heard of 'I think, therefore I am' though, right?
12 categories of mind, knowledge, etc.
Ya, and he had some very interesting views on people of colour, as well. Likeable fellow except for that one huge character flaw.
Brilliant, is in the eye of the beholder.
So the idea of a priori / prior knowledge, framework etc still lives on - ok :) Watching kids play, it's pretty easy to see that, for the first few months, they don't exactly exhibit any 'clues' of what they do or don't get.
Though my two & 1/2 year old, he speaks English quite well, and a smattering of Nepali & Dhivehi. At one time, he spoke more Spanish than English. I have no idea if he knew things before hand or not, but imho, he's far to clever for his own good at his age.
Take a read through the discussion again, friend. :) Bird mentioned, "probably not latin..." referring to Plato. lol.
The chap (Socrates) didn't even exist but as a figment of Plato's imagination.
You are right there is still some postulation about whether Socrates existed, but most authoroties accept that he did.
And, as for post #6 -> are you saying that Greek existed before latin?
Hm...I'm not a big student of history, but the post said, "the concept has been around since latin" which does NOT say, "it was first expressed or written in latin"
bit of a difference there - sorry to nit pick.
Not a historian either, but yes, absolutely.
"...it says, "probably" ..."
Now you are nitpicking ;) The point of my poost was not to find fault with anyone's posts. But WebmasterWorld is often used as a well respected reference point (even in topics which don't relate to Webmastery), so I thought I'd just make things clear fo anyone who happens to do a search and stumble upoin this thread in future.
Anyway, sorry to interupt the flow of the topic.
sorry to interupt the flow of the topic
Interrrupt the flow? In my limited experience with the philosophy department in my university days, this kind of semantic dickering is par for the course for any philosophical discussion.
People have the odd idea that philosophers/philosophy majors/etc. spend all their time thinking deep thoughts... they spend most of their time arguing over who's school of thought more full of bull than who's, and then huge departmental rifts form over whether or not Kant was the first to use the term "a priori" in its present context/meaning.
I'd say you're making the flow of the topic much more authentic. :)
Colloquial Latin remains in the form of Spanish and French. Greek remains with us in forms of Attic and Doric, spoken in Greece and the Peloponesos respectively.
We've found earlier written examples of Greek than we have Latin but both languages were around at the same time.
<added>If you really want to make philosophers nuts just tell them that the a priori concept was arrived at using a posteriori methods.</added>
<more>If you really want to annoy people that like to quote Latin phrases, the next time you hear someone say, "Et tu, Brute", just tell them that Caesar never said that, he said, "Kai su teknon". (you too, my child). Make friends, influence people. ;)
[edited by: digitalghost at 1:21 am (utc) on June 21, 2003]
And, as for post #6 -> are you saying that Greek existed before latin?
What I meant was - the phrase has been around since latin. This is just a way to express something in a language - so since the language has been around they've been calling "prior to experience" a priori. Sorry - should have cleared that up. The concept has been around since we first had time to start thinking about anything other than food.
Socrates - the current widespread opinion is that he never existed.
sorry to nit pick.
Now don't be sorry - if people didn't nitpick then philosophy would not exist. As mivox says - this is how it goes. It is pretty much all about semantics.
If you ever find yourself with a group of philosophers just start singing: Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable... ;)
edited - I can't quote...
"...Socrates - the current widespread opinion is that he never existed..."
Hmmm... that is not my understanding. Socrates' philosophy is very different to Plato's, even though Plato uses him as the protagonist representing all that is good in a philosopher in most of his writings. Historians can put a definite date on Socrates death, and a pretty good guess on his birth date. The main reason for the 'never existed theory' is that there are not many definitive references/writings about him, and the three main ones (Aristophanes, Xenophon, and Plato) contradict in some areas. But there is enough similarity not to dismiss the whole notion of Socrates existance.
What I want to know is, did he invent the 'a priori' concept / usage, or was it another person?
As a concept you could trace it back to early proponents of rationalism such as Platon. Platon was not the first to use the concept however, but going futher back in time is absurd since we lack reliable written records.
The second part of the question is plainly absurd. Who was the first person to use the the 'cow'? It is impossible to know. The the term "a priori" was frequently used by 17th and 18th centry philosophers.
However when ever I hear 'a priori' I always think of Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant and Quine (1908).
<not_all_that_offtopic>
Can Bad Men Make Good Brains Do Bad Things? [mindspring.com]
</not_all_that_offtopic>
Here, the big Kant's idea IMHO is the focus's shift:
it is not [so..] relevant if our a priori are correct, or not.
It is relevant that our [wrong or right..] a priori are the conditions of our 'data interpretation'.
So, when we see a flower, we're already 'owned' by our a priori [-> I dont mean the idea of flower eh.. that'd be Plato..].
And also, when the Euclides postulates seems true,
it happens _only_ because they [the postulates] describe these mental structures,
in this case, the a priori of space.
Hume was saying experience/induction is not reliable; the truth a-priori method is better. And philosophers don't want to think of themselves as just lingusits who look for tautologies to decide if something is true; so what remains?
So Kant was saying that Hume is wrong to think experience/induction is not reliable and a-priori is better, because everything we know a-priori is only known through "the conditions of our 'data interpretation'" (as cminblues put it).
So, to get back to the original question, my understanding is that Kant's use of a-priori was in response to Hume's use of a-priori.
I hope my understanding is not too much of an over-simplification of the issues
