User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 59

  1. #1
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default Essence of Apriori

    The essence of apriori
    Many dozens of dissertations could be found devoted to this topic, or to the exploration of the question of what exactly apriori means. The most typical answer one can find is that it simply means prior to experience. In that regard, what exactly is the entity in question that is prior to experience. Is it knowledge that is prior to experience? Is it skill? Potential for knowledge? Potential for skill? Something else that appears to be possible prior to experience. I suggest that we explore each of these phenomena one at a time.

    I. Is it possible to have knowledge prior to experience?

    If we were to imagine that it is, an example that would follow is very similar to what Plato had in mind. Namely that all knowledge is innate, and we somehow have it stored in our unconscious. What we need to do is not to acquire knowledge, but merely to recover it. Such a cognitive activity is more similar to remembering than to mastering a new skill or attaining new information. How could this be possible? For example, a mathematician who seems to be learning new concepts is mysteriously recovering what he has already known. Why would someone be led to think that way? Perhaps it is the case that the mathematician seems to have an uncanny talent to acquire skill and knowledge in mathematics. He appears to be so adept at what he does, that one may say that he is simply a natural. In other words he is learning the concepts of mathematics so quickly and so effortlessly that it seems like he already knows the material he was dealing with. It is understandable why one would be motivated to make such a conjecture, yet it appears completely foundationless. That is the case because we simply do not see how knowledge of mathematics could be stored within ones memory independent of prior experience with the subject. In order to ensure that we acquire the most reliable knowledge we must ensure that the information we collect, which we use to establish the premises for our argument derived from our observations of the external world. If our information is not clearly traceable to external world, it is unlikely to be accurate because it simply will have no relevance to the problem we are observing in the external world. In this case the problem we are observing in the external world is the work and the learning process of a gifted mathematician. It is such an observation that in the first place made us wonder if knowledge could be innate. In order to do justice to this problem, we must attempt to refute the thesis that some knowledge is innate.

    When we observe newborn children, we see that they tend to have the potential for acquiring knowledge. That is why we teach them to speak, or teach them to memorize the names of certain objects. The question to follow is, what exactly is such a potential? We know that children are born with an ability to sense external objects and with some ability to recollect what has been observed. Hence, they have, to a certain degree, sensation and a faculty of intellectual cognition. Or quite simply an ability to store what they have observed in their memories and recollect what has been stored when what has been stored is evoked. Since our question is that of possibility of apriori knowledge, we must clearly define what knowledge is. Knowledge is a set of true beliefs that we are consciously aware of and are able to refer to when we choose to do so. On that note, skills one is aware of with regard to doing a mathematical problem should be considered knowledge, yet the instinct that one has to breathe is not. Hence, if we are to argue that knowledge is innate as Plato has, it would follow that the relationship an infant has to knowledge, as hung over drunkard has to memories of what has occurred the night before. We simply see no reason to believe that an infant is able to act in a deliberate and an intelligent matter. The infant does not appear to be consciously aware of what he is doing. He is always acting on impulse and will continue to do so until knowledge is imparted within him.

    II. What is truly innate?
    We clearly see that some skills are innate and among them is the ability to breathe, or the ability to emit sounds, as infants are clearly able to do this. However, a more important question to ask is with regard to potentiality to develop certain qualities. For example, it appears nearly incontestable that not every infant has the potential to become an athlete, or a scholar, or a musician and so on. The question that we are forced to ask at this point is, did X develop the potential to become as intelligent as Einstein primarily because of his innate, or apriori dispositions, or because of the way he was treated as an infant and as a child. This appears to be unclear. It seems most likely to me that the most salient factor consisted in the apriori psychological predispositions of the child because most infants are treated in a very similar fashion, as well as most children are, yet only very few emerge as intelligent as Einstein or with any particular set of qualities. If this was not the case, than we simply could devise a recipe for how to ensure that our children age with a certain set of qualities. For instance, we may investigate how a child should be nurtured in order for him to become highly intelligent, or highly artistic, or highly athletic. At this point, I am inclined to reject such a thesis because I simply see no reason to believe that there is a direct and a very strong correlation between nurturing a child in a certain way, especially an infant, and the child maturing with a set of specific qualities. This, however is the question that I pose to the rest of the group. The question that I wish to discuss is, what degree are ones natural talents a result of ones apriori dispositions and to what degree have ones natural talents been influenced by interaction with the world. Jungian typology is a subject that merits consideration in this essay. The definition of a type is a solidified unconscious tendency of thought. Empirical investigation has shown that Extroversion is a solidified tendency of thought and Introversion also is. In other words, one has a tendency to derive positive emotive stimuli through interaction with the world. One also has a tendency to derive positive emotive stimuli through contemplation. One is an extrovert if the former tendency is stronger than the latter. One is an introvert if the latter tendency is more pronounced than the former. It is unlikely that infants are born with one of the two tendencies clearly being more distinct than the other.

    It is difficult to envisage an infant who has a clearly more distinct tendency towards contemplation than interaction with the external world. In order to have a strong tendency towards contemplation one needs to have a rich inner life, or intellectual capabilities in order to contemplate. An infant obviously does not have this as all the content of the inner life he may have consists in the very little information he has collected from the external world. Inevitably, he is forced to interact with the external world in order to acquire the material necessary to engage his mind. On that note all infants have a slight tendency towards extroversion. However, that does not mean that they are of the extroverted type. The definition of type is a solidified unconscious tendency. The minds of infants must obviously be malleable because they simply have not had enough experiences of the same kind to strongly prefer one experience over the other. We tend to prefer one experience over the other strongly only when we have developed a positive sentiment towards one kind of an experience and therefore experience displeasure when we are forced to stop engaging in such an experience. For instance, one begins to like sugar after he has experienced sugar many times and sugar has instilled itself within the mind of the experience. If the taste of sugar produced contrary sentiments to the taste of salt, ones attachment to sugar would lead one to become averse to the taste of salt. However, in order for one to make an attachment to the taste, the experience of sugar must produce such an intensely pleasant sentiment within the mind of an experiencer than the experiencer will not wish to cease having the experience. Such intensity of sentiment is unlikely to occur unless the experience has taken place multiple times. For the very least, we can establish that we are much more likely to develop an attachment to a particular sentiment if it has occurred many times. From this it follows that because infants had not had many experiences with extroversion or one particular way of cognitively functioning, they are unlikely to have a firm attachment to such a way of cognitive functioning. As evidence for this, we could cite how all infants appear to be behaving in an extroverted fashion when they are merely a few weeks or a few months old, but this changes when they age, as some clearly display introverted characteristics. It certainly would be interesting to see how strong of an apriori disposition a baby has towards extroversion or introversion, or towards imagination (Intuition) for example. Perhaps at one point when our technology is advanced enough we will be able to identify the activity in the brain that is responsible for the tendency or the activity of imagination and on that discover to what degree one has a nearly inborn tendency towards such a way of thinking. To clarify the matter, we should consider the following example; assume that a baby has a clear-cut disposition towards extroversion. Assume that we are able to identify certain activity in the brain that corresponds to extroversion. In order for a baby to become an extrovert, it must develop a strong, nearly unshakable attachment to the positive emotion associated with the activity of extroversion. If the baby naturally and most easily derives positive sentiment from extroversion (than from all other cognitive functioning), the baby obviously will develop a strong attachment to the activity of extroversion. The question to follow is, to what degree is the baby predisposed to do so.

    We may conclude that we are born with certain dispositions to behave in particular fashion, we are inevitably led to question why this is the case. The principle of evolution seems to explain this phenomenon. This is illustrated clearly in the following regard. Monkeys had an ability to climb trees well, therefore the offspring of such monkeys had a strong instinctual tendency towards such an activity as well.

    At this point, we return to the question of what is truly innate. What is clearly innate is our ability to function physically on a certain level and our dispositions to function physically and psychology in certain other manners.


    III. Some metaphysical considerations of apriori
    "Consequently, there is no pure knowledge outside of the world based on our senses, and no objectivity of knowledge possible without being founded on subjectivity. The way we perceive the world seems to consist simply in receiving outside information, and yet, according to Kant, it is a rather complicated relation of first giving and then taking, and consequently any epistemic relation we have to another implies a relation also to ourselves. Kant is not thereby advocating a subjectivism; he invites us to reconsider the nature of objectivity as dependent on our subjectivity. Thinghood or causality, for instance, which Hume sceptically claimed to be merely subjective constructs (subjective in the bad sense of representing something that in reality does not exist), are acknowledged by Kant as indeed subjective concepts, but subjective to a degree that all objectivity of our knowledge depends on them. They are so fundamental, so deeply rooted in our subjectivity, that without them no empirical world remains for us to know." Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason.
    Isaac Newton thought that the universe functions like a simple mechanism. A causes B, B causes C, and C caused D. His view was the most intuitive, or that we are part of the big mechanism in the external world, and what we observe around us, is the external world itself, which is as real as it could be. Hume, though pointed out, quite correctly that what we know is that our sensations deliver information to us that we have a hunch has something to do with the external world, yet we do not have any reason to believe that this hunch is correct. We merely know that we have access to the information the senses gave us, but if the senses have collected the information adequately. Kant has suggested that it is not the case as Newton thought, that we are in the world, but the world is in us which is plausible. Newtons intuitive worldview is manifestly untenable. Newtons world is finite because it has many attributes. It means it has been created by another entity, because a finite entity is by definition limited. Yet what created this one another entity, another entity? We shall proceed ad infinitum seeking the first cause without having found one. This leads to the absurdity that something came from nothing. Such a thesis could not be true. Therefore Newtons claim that the world of our finite experience is as real as it gets must be false. If we posit that the ultimate reality is infinite, we shall have an opportunity to explain the first cause of the universe. What is infinite is by definition without limits. Therefore what is infinite is all that exists. Thus it by definition has no limits, that means no constrains of time. Therefore it has always existed and will always exist. It also by definition has no creator because it is all that exists. Our world is not infinite, therefore it is an illusion. It is however, our apriori representation of the infinite realm. Because our mind is unable to properly process the infinite realm, it unconsciously represents it in terms of what it can properly process. Hence, this is a clear-cut example of an apriori faculty within the human mind. When a baby is born, it unconsciously translates the infinite realm into finite terms and as a result of this envisages the world as we know it. This is not to be counted as knowledge because the representation of the finite world as we experience is unconscious rather than conscious. In other words, this merely represents the opportunity one has to experience the external world directly. We can conclude that three entities are completely apriori, the vision of the external world or the opportunity to experience it, our physical functions and the potential to function in a certain physical or a psychological way.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    260

    Default

    My pants just got wet

  3. #3
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    SolitaryWalker, while it's entirely possible that the full economy of universes may be infinite, there is no evidence for the assertion that this universe is.

    I consider Hume's assertion nonsense; our sense organs evolved to send us real information about the universe we inhabit. A species with sense organs that transmitted false information would not have made it far.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  4. #4
    Senior Member Moiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    6,020

    Default

    I don't usually complain about the lengths of posts but I must say, despite being somewhat interested to read the topic, that wall of text scares me.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Anja's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    2,967

    Default

    Put me in mind of that old experiment with, was it, flatworms? Anyway your OP sent me for a quick and interesting review of a few a priori experiments. Interesting.
    "No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith." - Albert Schweitzer

  6. #6
    Senior Member Anentropic IxTx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    LII?
    Posts
    268

    Default

    I think we must have some innate potential that makes us human.

  7. #7
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    SolitaryWalker, while it's entirely possible that the full economy of universes may be infinite, there is no evidence for the assertion that this universe is.

    I consider Hume's assertion nonsense; our sense organs evolved to send us real information about the universe we inhabit. A species with sense organs that transmitted false information would not have made it far.
    Indeed this universe is finite and we know this because there is at least one entity that is limited. Infinity by definition is limitless, if our universe was infinite, it would be comprised of one entity that is without an end. It is not possible that the universe as we experience it is infinite. However, the underlying layer of this universe, which is for Kant the noumenal world, the Zeitgeist for Hegel, the substance for Spinoza and the Will for Schopenhauer is infinite. Hume's assertion is counter-intuitive, yet we cannot dismiss it because it is counter-intuitive. It is true that we are biologically hard-wired in such a way that we had to collect accurate information about the world, however, this proposition cannot be supported without a certain metaphysical inquiry.

    For instance, it is technically possible that we collect inaccurate information about the world around us, but accurate enough to survive. But even if we forget this question for now, we are still unable to explain where the universe came from. For this reason the Newtonian metaphysics of common-sense realism are unacceptable, or simply we cannot maintain that the physical world as we experience it is all there is.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #8
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Indeed this universe is finite and we know this because there is at least one entity that is limited. Infinity by definition is limitless, if our universe was infinite, it would be comprised of one entity that is without an end. It is not possible that the universe as we experience it is infinite. However, the underlying layer of this universe, which is for Kant the noumenal world, the Zeitgeist for Hegel, the substance for Spinoza and the Will for Schopenhauer is infinite. Hume's assertion is counter-intuitive, yet we cannot dismiss it because it is counter-intuitive. It is true that we are biologically hard-wired in such a way that we had to collect accurate information about the world, however, this proposition cannot be supported without a certain metaphysical inquiry.

    For instance, it is technically possible that we collect inaccurate information about the world around us, but accurate enough to survive. But even if we forget this question for now, we are still unable to explain where the universe came from. For this reason the Newtonian metaphysics of common-sense realism are unacceptable, or simply we cannot maintain that the physical world as we experience it is all there is.
    If I understand your assertion correctly, you believe that reality is infinite and that the "universe" as we perceive it is merely the result of placing the finite atop this "infinite substance" by the act of conscious perception.

    I agree that there is the possibility that reality -- the full economy of universes -- may be infinite, but evidence would indicate that this universe is not; in short, that we are hardwired to perceive this universe as it is and that we don't "create" the universe by perceiving it. (A notion I can't help but note that INTPs nearly universally share a fondness for.) Furthermore, while it is a fact that our sense organs don't pass along all varieties of information possible to the extent that is possible (e.g. compare the olfactory organs of a canine and a human being), the information that our sense organs do pass along is, by its nature, "truthful": our sense organs have no conscious will and cannot lie. The light waves that our eyes interpret and pass into our brain are absolutely real.

    Counter-intuitive is also not the term I would use: the notion that, because I have eyeballs mathematics exists and planets circle stars is absurd. An entire philosophy built on the basis of that for which, not only there is no evidence, but for which there can never be evidence is nothing more than dressed-up mysticism.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  9. #9
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    If I understand your assertion correctly, you believe that reality is infinite and that the "universe" as we perceive it is merely the result of placing the finite atop this "infinite substance" by the act of conscious perception.

    I agree that there is the possibility that reality -- the full economy of universes -- may be infinite, but evidence would indicate that this universe is not; in short, that we are hardwired to perceive this universe as it is and that we don't "create" the universe by perceiving it. (A notion I can't help but note that INTPs nearly universally share a fondness for.) Furthermore, while it is a fact that our sense organs don't pass along all varieties of information possible to the extent that is possible (e.g. compare the olfactory organs of a canine and a human being), the information that our sense organs do pass along is, by its nature, "truthful": our sense organs have no conscious will and cannot lie. The light waves that our eyes interpret and pass into our brain are absolutely real.

    Counter-intuitive is also not the term I would use: the notion that, because I have eyeballs mathematics exists and planets circle stars is absurd. An entire philosophy built on the basis of that for which, not only there is no evidence, but for which there can never be evidence is nothing more than dressed-up mysticism.
    It needs to be clarified that the infinite realm is by definition inscrutable. As far as our inquiry is concerned, there is nothing that we could discover that could be infinite. What our sense organs perceive is irrelevant on that note. Because the world that we deal with is not inscrutable. As far as I am concerned, the computer in front of me will still be there if I close my eyes. We perceive it accurately. Kant tries to answer the question of why exactly that is the case. It cannot be that the computer in front of me is an entity without a substratum or an underlying layer because if that was the case, we could not know where it came from in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    An entire philosophy built on the basis of that for which, not only there is no evidence, but for which there can never be evidence is nothing more than dressed-up mysticism.
    It serves the purpose of explaining why there is something rather than nothing.

    1)If our world lacks a substratum, it is finite and has derived from something that is finite. We shall go ad infinitum seeking the first cause with no success.

    2)If it has a substratum, it can be posited that this world is a derivation from the infinite realm as a result of the unconscious distortion of our perception. (Note, we all see the same world because our minds work in the same way. Cats will see this world in a fashion slightly different from ours. Studies have noted that they may not see any colors or see the world in a fashion that we would be tempted to describe as 'upside down'. )
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  10. #10
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Why a substratum, though? Why not, for example, an infinitely expansive "chain" of finite universes?
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

Similar Threads

  1. Essence of Human nature
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-16-2013, 11:10 PM
  2. Song Which Capture the Essence of Functions
    By Thalassa in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 11-06-2011, 04:18 PM
  3. Institutional essence of a University
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 02-06-2010, 05:58 AM
  4. [NF] Essence of People
    By nolla in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-19-2008, 07:13 PM
  5. [MBTItm] Essence of Feeling
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-20-2008, 05:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO