Difference between revisions of "A Priori"
(Created page with 'File:lighterstill.jpgright|frame ==Etymology== Latin, literally, from the former *Date: [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_Century 1652] ==Definiti...') |
m (Text replacement - "http://" to "https://") |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Etymology== | ==Etymology== | ||
[[Latin]], literally, from the former | [[Latin]], literally, from the former | ||
| − | *Date: [ | + | *Date: [https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_Century 1652] |
==Definitions== | ==Definitions== | ||
*1 a : [[deductive]] | *1 a : [[deductive]] | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
The terms '''''a priori''''' ("prior to") and ''a posteriori'' ("subsequent to") are used in [[philosophy]] ([[epistemology]]) to distinguish two [[types]] of [[knowledge]], justifications or [[arguments]]. A priori knowledge or justification is [[independent]] of [[experience]] (for example 'All bachelors are unmarried'); a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical [[evidence]] (for example 'Some bachelors are very happy'). A priori justification makes [[reference]] to [[experience]]; but the issue concerns how one knows the proposition or claim in question—what justifies or grounds one's [[belief]] in it. Galen Strawson wrote that an a priori [[argument]] is one of which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and [[examine]] the way [[things]] are in the [[physical]] world. You don't have to do any [[science]]." There are many [[points of view]] on these two types of assertion, and their [[relationship]] is one of the oldest problems in modern [[philosophy]]. | The terms '''''a priori''''' ("prior to") and ''a posteriori'' ("subsequent to") are used in [[philosophy]] ([[epistemology]]) to distinguish two [[types]] of [[knowledge]], justifications or [[arguments]]. A priori knowledge or justification is [[independent]] of [[experience]] (for example 'All bachelors are unmarried'); a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical [[evidence]] (for example 'Some bachelors are very happy'). A priori justification makes [[reference]] to [[experience]]; but the issue concerns how one knows the proposition or claim in question—what justifies or grounds one's [[belief]] in it. Galen Strawson wrote that an a priori [[argument]] is one of which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and [[examine]] the way [[things]] are in the [[physical]] world. You don't have to do any [[science]]." There are many [[points of view]] on these two types of assertion, and their [[relationship]] is one of the oldest problems in modern [[philosophy]]. | ||
| − | See also the related distinctions: [[deductive]]/[[inductive]], [[analytic]]/[[synthetic]], [[necessary]]/[[contingent]].[ | + | See also the related distinctions: [[deductive]]/[[inductive]], [[analytic]]/[[synthetic]], [[necessary]]/[[contingent]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori] |
[[Category: Philosophy]] | [[Category: Philosophy]] | ||
Latest revision as of 23:35, 12 December 2020
Etymology
Latin, literally, from the former
- Date: 1652
Definitions
- 1 a : deductive
- b : relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions — compare a posteriori
- c : presupposed by experience
- 2 a : being without examination or analysis : presumptive
- b : formed or conceived beforehand
Description
The terms a priori ("prior to") and a posteriori ("subsequent to") are used in philosophy (epistemology) to distinguish two types of knowledge, justifications or arguments. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example 'All bachelors are unmarried'); a posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example 'Some bachelors are very happy'). A priori justification makes reference to experience; but the issue concerns how one knows the proposition or claim in question—what justifies or grounds one's belief in it. Galen Strawson wrote that an a priori argument is one of which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science." There are many points of view on these two types of assertion, and their relationship is one of the oldest problems in modern philosophy.
See also the related distinctions: deductive/inductive, analytic/synthetic, necessary/contingent.[1]
