Is knowledge a priori?

Hi Third P,

The most learned person in the world can still be alone and empty. Knowledge fills the head, but love fills the soul. So, which is more of a priori....... When you had all of the 'knowledge' and the 'wisdom' in the universe, and did not have 'love', you would really have nothing....... My thoughts...

Thank you for your question, Third P. :) .. And, take care of yourself.

My regards.

We have a priori presumptions, but we don't have a priori knowledge.

For instance, it is a deeply buried human presumption, rooted in our nervous system, that beings who look a lot like us also have minds a lot like our own. Autism consists largely of the absense of the necessary neural connections for making that leap. High functioning autistic individuals will tell you that they have had to develop a theory of other minds slowly and painfully a posteriori.

Normally constituted individuals, though, get to start from there.

Yet I would not call this "theory of other minds" a priori knowledge. It doesn't become knowledge until and to the extent that it is tested within and supported by experience.

For the source below I will refer you to the Google Books copy of "Social Cognition" by David Lewis Gamilton. Once you follow the link, go to page 87 of that book for support for the nature of autism as outlined above.

no, not all knowledge is a priori.. anything we can understand independent of any experience counts as a priori knowledge like the example i hear used most often: all bachelors are unmarried, or a variation thereof. because all knowledge cant fit this mold, it would be fallacious to categorize all knowledge as a priori

A priori goes against the ancient Latin saying:

"Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu: (Lat.) 'Nothing is in the intellect which was not first in sense.' All the materials, or content, of higher, intellectual cognition are derived from the activity of lower, sense cognition. A principle subscribed to by Aristotle, St. Thomas and Locke; opposed by Plato, St. Augustine, [Kant] and Leibniz " http://www.ditext.com/runes/n.html

The old rivalry between Empiricism and Rationalism is a fallacy. We get our first apprehensions of existence via our senses, the method for life for interfacing with consciousness.

But once "something" in the mind which was first in sense, then reason goes to work on it. The mind needs both methods to operate. Without sensory input, there is no consciousness, because there is nothing to be conscious of if you can't sense any empirical existence around you.

Not really.

We are logical because the universe is.

Our logic is a reflection of our observations.

Our bodies & minds are evolved by the Logic of the Universe. (Logos)

Same with math & the rest to the allegedly a priori truths.

Rationalism is irrational. You want real answers, talk to an Empiricist.

Yes, and, no! On your journey, knowledge is helpful, useful: as is Devotion(Faith), as is Action(Karma). The sum of all this is a kind of Awareness, beyond Knowledge: that is the essence. In fact, knowledge devoid of trust, devoid of action (read, practical, benevolent use), devoid of 'good sense' -- is nearly no good at all!

Yes, until you experience doubt about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_poster...