'A Priori' Knowledge
What is a priori knowledge and why is it important?
A priori knowledge, in contrast to posteriori knowledge (learned knowledge), is knowledge that cannot be learned but is inherited. It is in blatant violation of the idea of the “blank slate”. There are two schools of thought. One says that we are born a blank slate upon which experience writes our history. We learn everything, but we are born completely blank, completely innocent. While the other says that we inherit certain universal truths and abilities, or knowledge. That we simply know it from birth.
Why is this important? In epistemology (the study of how we know what we know), it is vitally important which field of thought you come from for by it determines much of what you believe about knowledge. How trustworthy it is and honestly, how you truly know what you know. In epistemology, the goal is to determine how trustworthy our knowledge is. If we receive our knowledge from a source, then it is important to determine how qualified and accurate that source is. If we do not obtain it, but inherit it, then how trustworthy is that knowledge? Is it tested? Can it be tested? Are they presuppositions, or are they foundations that cannot be questioned? What exactly are they?
I once had a philosophy professor that although we did not see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, said something that has stuck with me. If you do not believe in a priori knowledge (inherited knowledge), then think about this. He said, How can you learn anything if you do not first have the knowledge of how to learn? Another professor put it even more succinctly. A priori knowledge is that knowledge that cannot be proven for it is a proof for itself.
Let me explain. Can you disprove logic? If A then B, if B then C, so if A then C. Math is founded upon logic. Can you disprove logic? The answer is no. Why? Because to disprove logic you would have to use logic. By using the very tool you wish to disprove you have in fact done the opposite and proven it’s validity by its use. Now can you prove logic is trustworthy? No. Why? For the very same reason, to prove logic you must use logic, but that is self-refuting for you cannot prove something by using itself.
The question then becomes can you trust it, for you can neither prove nor disprove it. My answer for that is yes. You must be able to trust it for without logic you would have to live hypocritically. No one walks into the middle of the street and says the bus will not hit me, for everyone believes the logic that two objects cannot fill the same space at the same time. Now, before we said that we cannot prove the accuracy of logic, but does that mean logic cannot be trusted? I say it must be trusted for that is where we live. We cannot live without logic, thus our a priori knowledge is justified in the living out of our lives in reality. Can you think of further examples of a priori knowledge? Have you ever thought about how you know what you know? Have you tested your own suppositions to accuracy tests? Have you decided for yourself what you believe? Can you answer the question... why?
Jared Williams
A priori knowledge, in contrast to posteriori knowledge (learned knowledge), is knowledge that cannot be learned but is inherited. It is in blatant violation of the idea of the “blank slate”. There are two schools of thought. One says that we are born a blank slate upon which experience writes our history. We learn everything, but we are born completely blank, completely innocent. While the other says that we inherit certain universal truths and abilities, or knowledge. That we simply know it from birth.
Why is this important? In epistemology (the study of how we know what we know), it is vitally important which field of thought you come from for by it determines much of what you believe about knowledge. How trustworthy it is and honestly, how you truly know what you know. In epistemology, the goal is to determine how trustworthy our knowledge is. If we receive our knowledge from a source, then it is important to determine how qualified and accurate that source is. If we do not obtain it, but inherit it, then how trustworthy is that knowledge? Is it tested? Can it be tested? Are they presuppositions, or are they foundations that cannot be questioned? What exactly are they?
I once had a philosophy professor that although we did not see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, said something that has stuck with me. If you do not believe in a priori knowledge (inherited knowledge), then think about this. He said, How can you learn anything if you do not first have the knowledge of how to learn? Another professor put it even more succinctly. A priori knowledge is that knowledge that cannot be proven for it is a proof for itself.
Let me explain. Can you disprove logic? If A then B, if B then C, so if A then C. Math is founded upon logic. Can you disprove logic? The answer is no. Why? Because to disprove logic you would have to use logic. By using the very tool you wish to disprove you have in fact done the opposite and proven it’s validity by its use. Now can you prove logic is trustworthy? No. Why? For the very same reason, to prove logic you must use logic, but that is self-refuting for you cannot prove something by using itself.
The question then becomes can you trust it, for you can neither prove nor disprove it. My answer for that is yes. You must be able to trust it for without logic you would have to live hypocritically. No one walks into the middle of the street and says the bus will not hit me, for everyone believes the logic that two objects cannot fill the same space at the same time. Now, before we said that we cannot prove the accuracy of logic, but does that mean logic cannot be trusted? I say it must be trusted for that is where we live. We cannot live without logic, thus our a priori knowledge is justified in the living out of our lives in reality. Can you think of further examples of a priori knowledge? Have you ever thought about how you know what you know? Have you tested your own suppositions to accuracy tests? Have you decided for yourself what you believe? Can you answer the question... why?
Jared Williams
