User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 21

  1. #1
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,991

    Default Why There Is A Priori Knowledge

    "A priori" is not to be confused with "innate," as is commonly done.

    http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm#3.2
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    A priori knowledge seems to follow rigid rules of cause and effect in a straight line of reasoning, as it will take us from point A to B to C, although the imaginative powers of the mind can take us anywhere, so do not limit yourself to the laws of a priori knowledge!

  3. #3
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    A priori knowledge seems to follow rigid rules of cause and effect in a straight line of reasoning, as it will take us from point A to B to C, although the imaginative powers of the mind can take us anywhere, so do not limit yourself to the laws of a priori knowledge!
    It's not detracting from imagination. In fact, much of this would involve imagining things that aren't immediately present to the mind. But it's a non-arbitrary, directed process of imagining.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  4. #4
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,808

    Default

    For example if I consider myself, I am innately there, no matter what I am or whether this is a dream or a lie of perception..somehow, somewhere; I exist.

    Whereas if I look at my screen and see Mal...well he may as well be a construct, built for the purpose of informing me about idea's which I knew of, but did not have terms for, thus if I close my eyes and my perception he vanishes in a puff of logic* > *which is also a priori.

    Ok ok im taking extreme liberties with the terms for the purpose of a bad joke. But while that is an interesting article, it seems to me the author spent an inordinate amount of words to make a simple point.

    How INTP of him .

    On the other hand it makes...well a big bucket of sense. Hopefully I understood it correctly that he/she was trying to point out the differences between 'things' which are or can be considered to BE and those which exist as a framework or system through which we might try to understand 'things' or which we build for ourselves but which are not true in the sense of the first because they are not literal, instead they are conceptual and their realities are evidenced only by individual or group perception which agreees on them to be true. Without which they could be said to not exist at all.

    It's merely a question of perceptional notions and truth. Actually id say almost everything in human perception is priori. I especially liked his point on ethical morality and mathematics.

    In fact the example of mathematics as a priori is actually part of a semi-famous scene in the book 1984, in which Winston is tortured mercilessly until he writes 2+2=5. Because the truths we so often take to be inherent are not and never have been, they are as fragile as our mental agreement allows them to be and once you tip the scales on that agreement it can change the entire system of perception.

    The amusing part for me is, as always, is that I believe I do understand the concepts since it relates to something ive been talking about for a while, but I always display my thoughts innaccurately through words, either written or spoken.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    For example if I consider myself, I am innately there, no matter what I am or whether this is a dream or a lie of perception..somehow, somewhere; I exist.

    Whereas if I look at my screen and see Mal...well he may as well be a construct, built for the purpose of informing me about idea's which I knew of, but did not have terms for, thus if I close my eyes and my perception he vanishes in a puff of logic* > *which is also a priori.

    Ok ok im taking extreme liberties with the terms for the purpose of a bad joke. But while that is an interesting article, it seems to me the author spent an inordinate amount of words to make a simple point.

    How INTP of him .
    That's Owl for ya. I should find more of his INTP material for you to enjoy. And frankly, his own students don't care much for his style of presentation. But his points are compelling.

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    On the other hand it makes...well a big bucket of sense. Hopefully I understood it correctly that he/she was trying to point out the differences between 'things' which are or can be considered to BE and those which exist as a framework or system through which we might try to understand 'things' or which we build for ourselves but which are not true in the sense of the first because they are not literal, instead they are conceptual and their realities are evidenced only by individual or group perception which agreees on them to be true. Without which they could be said to not exist at all.

    It's merely a question of perceptional notions and truth. Actually id say almost everything in human perception is priori. I especially liked his point on ethical morality and mathematics.

    In fact the example of mathematics as a priori is actually part of a semi-famous scene in the book 1984, in which Winston is tortured mercilessly until he writes 2+2=5. Because the truths we so often take to be inherent are not and never have been, they are as fragile as our mental agreement allows them to be and once you tip the scales on that agreement it can change the entire system of perception.
    Owl says that 2 + 2 <> 4 in all empirical cases. It works for simple objects but not for certain chemicals. As old man Piekoff himself says, "ii) 2 qts. of water mixed with 2 qts. of ethyl alcohol yield 3.86 qts. of liquid, at 15.56°C." His VERY OWN WORDS damn him.

    And yet we still believe 2 +2 = 4 to be true, because our justification is a priori and not observational.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  6. #6
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    That's Owl for ya. I should find more of his INTP material for you to enjoy. And frankly, his own students don't care much for his style of presentation. But his points are compelling.
    Oh I do agree, I found it very interesting.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    Owl says that 2 + 2 <> 4 in all empirical cases. It works for simple objects but not for certain chemicals. As old man Piekoff himself says, "ii) 2 qts. of water mixed with 2 qts. of ethyl alcohol yield 3.86 qts. of liquid, at 15.56°C." His VERY OWN WORDS damn him.

    And yet we still believe 2 +2 = 4 to be true, because our justification is a priori and not observational.
    Yeah.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AffirmitiveAnxiety View Post
    Oh I do agree, I found it very interesting.




    Yeah.
    Yeah. Well, it's not of utmost importance to you because Owl wasn't addressing you. He's addressing Objectivists who believe Rand's and Piekoff's cockamamie blathering and hold it as gospel.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  8. #8
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,808

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    Yeah. Well, it's not of utmost importance to you because Owl wasn't addressing you. He's addressing Objectivists who believe Rand's and Piekoff's cockamamie blathering and hold it as gospel.
    lol yes! I did get that.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  9. #9
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    The problem is the world cannot be divided into "outer" perceptive/experiential knowledge and "inner" a priori information anymore. The source of any information is both a perceiver and observable simultaneously. We mostly keep such concepts as a tribute to our ancestral past. Or rather the cultures that generated those ideas do. They're not very compelling anymore in a world in which the questions they were designed to answer can be answered more fully with more direct methods.
    For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    The problem is the world cannot be divided into "outer" perceptive/experiential knowledge and "inner" a priori information anymore. The source of any information is both a perceiver and observable simultaneously. We mostly keep such concepts as a tribute to our ancestral past. Or rather the cultures that generated those ideas do. They're not very compelling anymore in a world in which the questions they were designed to answer can be answered more fully with more direct methods.
    The problem here isn't outer versus inner, but knowledge versus justification.

    David Hume proved that justification cannot be external. His error was concluding that empirical certainty is therefore impossible.

    Applied to this case, you're saying that justification is both external and internal. I realize that you didn't mention that, only "knowledge" and "information." But what if justification is desirable, and what if it has to be either internal or external and not both?

    You're right in that knowledge and information are necessary epistemic conditions of certainty. But they are not sufficient. With only external information, your internal knowedge is reduced to uncertainty, or even dreams in the vat-brain that only thinks the information is externally sourced. Without some form of
    a priori justification, you can't even have "external" and "internal" distinctions.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

Similar Threads

  1. There is no such thing as personality.
    By ygolo in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 10:13 AM
  2. [ESTP] why ESTP is rarely present, or even talked?
    By niki in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 05-04-2008, 09:57 AM
  3. This is why incest is against the law...
    By The Ü™ in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-14-2007, 01:46 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